Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[ladajo]

This is getting silly.

[hanelyp]

Right back atcha, digot!
Your admission that you consider the KKK, NAZI party and skinhead organisations and many many other hateful groups 'credible' and 'above reproach' makes you the singularly most disgusting, morally corrupt member here.

Words fail. You are a sick lying bastard @sshole. That is all anyone needs to know about you. You have no example of me admitting any such thing because I regard such groups as reprehensible, but the truth never got in your way before.

He may be referring to your off hand dismissal of the southern poverty law center, that being listed by them as a hate group might as well be an endorsement. A few groups they list as hate groups belong on such a list. But I believe they list many groups and omit others based on a socialist / "anti white" leaning filter.

Whatever the stated intent, the effect of many groups they endorse is the continuation and expansion of poverty.

[Blankbeard]

Don't trust the right wing conservatives any more than the left wing liberals, neither has any respect for the Constitution.

Well, I know many liberals and conservatives who are decent honest people who have beliefs I don't share. I don't want to sound like I'm stereotyping.

Which is why I agree with the idea that maybe the 2nd amendment may be the most important one of all.

Having shared a house with a Marine Corps veteran, I am inclined to say the third amendment is the most important. He got filth on the inside of sealed containers.

This is getting silly.

Agreed.

But Wilco. There might be someone reading the dialogue who is too stupid to get the joke. Given some of the denizens here, I wouldn't be surprised.

Good enough. It's not about the readers, it's about taking responsibility for your own ideas. I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it with my life and I will shove my boot up your rear so far you can smell shoelace if you try to make it look like I said it. (That's a joke. Mostly)

[Diogenes]

Right back atcha, digot!

I can't speak for him but for an extreme social conservative the list looks like this

Repealed
21, maybe 17 and 26

A Caricature of it, but how could you do better than that without understanding the principles involved? I'm actually glad you brought this up, because I see plenty of mistakes made in past constitutional amendments, and I like pointing out that they were mistakes and why.


Probably the worst amendment is the 24th. The bulk of it is fine, it is just the last three words which make it a death sentence for the nation. The poll tax had been used by Democrats to prevent Black people from voting, and so it needed to go, but because of those last three little words "Or other tax", they created a political circumstance whereby those who contribute nothing to the public treasury could elect people who promised to give them government money in exchange for their support.

This has been the Bane of Government since before the first Greek attempt at Democracy, and much of the financial and social disaster that subsequently followed was the result of this well-intentioned, but foolish Amendment.

You are partially right about the 26th amendment. It was the product of the anti-war movement during the 1960s. It is also well intentioned but wrong headed. It has been my observation that the most significant growth in maturity for an individual occurs between the ages of 18 and 21. This is the time interval in most people's lives when they get out of their parents house and work to make their own way in the world, and it is a time when life teaches them valuable life lessons. Allowing the vote at 18, short circuits that potentially acquired wisdom which would have benefited their voting choices.

The argument in the 1960s was "Old enough to fight, but not old enough to vote." I would have been in favor of an amendment that allows anyone serving the nation in it's armed forces to vote at the age of 18, but which would exclude all of those cowardly draft dodgers who do not deserve to have an influence on our nation's government.

I would like to write more, and about other amendments, but it would be too much for you to absorb at one time.

Gutted (Changed so as to effectively eliminate the intent
1, 4, 8,9,10

Nonsense. All the original amendments are fine, provided you keep those liberal bastard judges away from improvising them to mean something other than what they originally meant.

The extremes on both ends seem to want to rewrite the 1rst to be "everyone is entitled to our opinion. 8,9, and 10 are effectively dead letters at this point.

Demanding equal access to the public's attention is not suppressing opposition opinion, it is balancing it. We currently have a system where virtually everyone working in Media is Hired in New York (Obama 79% 2008) or Los Angeles (Obama 69% 2008) and then joins a Union.

If anybody thinks that demographic is going to fairly cover positions with which they disagree, you are on drugs. (or perhaps ought to be.)

I think you could make a similar list for our friends on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's mostly the same. 21, 17 and 26 drop out as does 4. 5 comes in because of the takings clause that I've heard "mainstream" progressives decry. The second is gone, of course. Maybe 11 too.

Extreme libertarians generally only have a problem with 16, as far as I can see.

Liberals don't care which amendments are there or not. They simply re-interpret them so that they mean what they want them to mean. For example, the 14th amendment, (Granting Citizenship to freed slaves) is the legal justification for forcing states to legalize Abortion, and also prohibiting public displays of religion.

And to further correct you, Libertarians and Liberals are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Liberals want almost total government, and Libertarians want almost total absence of government.

Edmund Burke/Adam Smith conservatives want the proper amount of government. Not too much nor too little. This is the sensible middle.

[Diogenes]

I can't speak for him but for an extreme social conservative the list looks like this

Repealed
21, maybe 17 and 26

Gutted (Changed so as to effectively eliminate the intent
1, 4, 8,9,10

The extremes on both ends seem to want to rewrite the 1rst to be "everyone is entitled to our opinion. 8,9, and 10 are effectively dead letters at this point.

I think you could make a similar list for our friends on the opposite end of the spectrum. It's mostly the same. 21, 17 and 26 drop out as does 4. 5 comes in because of the takings clause that I've heard "mainstream" progressives decry. The second is gone, of course. Maybe 11 too.

Extreme libertarians generally only have a problem with 16, as far as I can see.

Don't trust the right wing conservatives any more than the left wing liberals, neither has any respect for the Constitution.

Pray tell, what examples do you have of this? Among all my right-winged conservative ilk, if anything, the problem is they spend too much time WORSHIPING the U.S. Constitution. In arguments amongst us, we get deep into the history of how various amendments were created, who backed them and why, and what their intended effect was supposed to be.

I don't know anyone suggesting that Constitutional law should not be followed. People suggest amendments, but that's about it.

Which is why I agree with the idea that maybe the 2nd amendment may be the most important one of all. There is a news story (heard originally on Fox) that maybe Obama is planning on re-categorizing a whole host of semiautomatic weapons as heavily regulated fully automatics under the pretext of their allegedly being easy to modify to full auto. They would all be regulated like machine guns...sure they would figure out a way to include semi-auto pistols to like my Glock 26 and my Beretta. Wouldn't require an act of Congress, just presidential instructions to the ATF.

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/11/ ... -firearms/

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-t ... rns-expert

When Black Americans were being oppressed by Democrats, the NRA came to their rescue by standing up for their rights and helping them with training and the acquisition of weapons. Here is but one example of this.

[Diogenes]

Again.RIGHT. BACK. AT. YOU.

One. I am not lying about what you said. I will quote it below. No doubt you will claim to have misspoken. I am sure you didn't. You let the mask slip and we got to see the 'real' you.

F*** you prick. Your sort is always accusing people who disagree with you of "racism" or "sexism" or some other new and improved made up "ism". I'm sick of granting accusers such as you credibility. You interpret everything as some sort of racist/sexist dog whistle, and the funny thing is, you people seem to be the only ones hearing it. The position of the "real" me has been described clearly enough in my comments going back several years. You are just a lackwit that hasn't been around long enough to read them, nor had the reasoning faculties to do so had you had the intelligence sufficient to think of it.

Two. My parents were married 10 months before I was born.

Again, a lack of comprehension regarding metaphor.

Three. ad hominem. You can't refute the argument so attack the messenger.
Classic.

Oh, not nearly so much as the author, who is pretending to be the messenger, deserves.

Diogenes wrote:
Stubby wrote:
Family Research Institute


Quote:

The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group[4] by the nonprofit civil rights organization[5][6][7] Southern Poverty Law Center[8][9] because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people.



Well, that's all I need to know about them to consider them credible. Anybody labeled a "hate group" by the Nuts and Kooks running the Southern Poverty Law Center is above reproach in my book.

You do have a problem with comprehension. Given that I ended up being read by an IDIOT, I should have chosen more careful words.


People who keep up with the "Southern Poverty Law Center" are aware that they have historically labeled various racists and skinhead groups as "hate groups" but more recently they have taken to naming anyone and everyonewho doesn't supporttheir Liberal Agenda as a "Hate Group." (Such as the Family Research Council.)

Here is a man who claims to have been an insider on the group and relates how they propagandize everything to support their agenda.



The SPLC has lately become just another arm of the Liberal propaganda machine, rather than a legitimate organization. You of course, intentionally interpreted my criticism of this Hate mongering organization as support for groups it had labeled in the past.

Now you are either an incredible class of stupid, or you intentionally misrepresented my position on purpose. (or both.) Either way, I regard you as unworthy of respect.

I can understand why you feel you can't continue to preach your ideas here. And it is nice of you to confirm who we all are talking to when you do sprout your foul ideas.

And that other website your posted (H.O.M.E.) is also on the list.
'
List of Organisations deemed to be 'above reproach' and considered 'credible' by Diogenes

The SPLC reported that there were 926 active hate groups in the United States in 2008, up from 888 in 2007. That number did not include hate groups that appear to exist only on the Internet. The groups included:

186 separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups with 52 websites
196 neo-Nazi groups with 89 websites
111 white nationalist groups with 190 websites
98 white power skinhead groups with 25 websites
39 Christian Identity groups with 37 websites
93 neo-Confederate groups with 25 websites
113 black separatist groups with 40 websites
159 patriot movement groups
90 general hate groups (subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic and others)[9][10] with 172 hate websites.[11]

You need to be hit with a clue bat. If someone doesn't overtly claim support for some specific organization, it is not prudent to accuse them of supporting some organization, especially well known and widely disliked racist hate groups. Generalities are not substitutes for specifics. This is the sort of crap that occurs when you have someone with an Occupy Wall Street mentality loose on a keyboard.

You are be-clowning yourself.

[Diogenes]

Right back atcha, digot!
Your admission that you consider the KKK, NAZI party and skinhead organisations and many many other hateful groups 'credible' and 'above reproach' makes you the singularly most disgusting, morally corrupt member here.

Words fail. You are a sick lying bastard @sshole. That is all anyone needs to know about you. You have no example of me admitting any such thing because I regard such groups as reprehensible, but the truth never got in your way before.

He may be referring to your off hand dismissal of the southern poverty law center, that being listed by them as a hate group might as well be an endorsement. A few groups they list as hate groups belong on such a list. But I believe they list many groups and omit others based on a socialist / "anti white" leaning filter.

Whatever the stated intent, the effect of many groups they endorse is the continuation and expansion of poverty.

Yup, he is just looking for support for his own prejudice caricature of who he thinks I am. I don't recall precisely, it might have been him, but someone had previously thought I was some sort of religious nut. (Not even close.)

The Original list of SPLC "Hate" groups are actual hate groups, but for many years now, the SPLC had run out of real organizations to criticize, and had taken to labeling anyone who didn't support their liberal positions as a new hate group. Nowadays, people such as "Constitutionalists", or People who object to illegal immigration, or people who object to Abortion or the "Gay" agenda, are now routinely labeled by the SPLC as a "Hate" group.

The point of my original comment is that the Southern Poverty Law Center's credibility is badly damaged, regardless of what it once was. It has become "the boy who cried wolf" one too many times now, and it should no longer be taken seriously until it gets some sort of change in Leadership. (Hopefully to a non lunatic.)

[Diogenes]

Good enough. It's not about the readers, it's about taking responsibility for your own ideas. I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it with my life and I will shove my boot up your rear so far you can smell shoelace if you try to make it look like I said it. (That's a joke. Mostly)

Alright. I'm going to make an effort to change the foot on which we've gotten off in this discussion.

[Diogenes]

Gun Control’s Racist Origins

So it is no surprise that for most of our history, the Black community from the leadership to the grassroots has explicitly and aggressively endorsed the right of armed self-defense and firearms ownership. Kentucky firebrand Ida B. Wells urged that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Negro home.” The first generation of legal battles by the NAACP were centered on defending Blacks who had used firearms in self-defense – e.g., hiring Clarence Darrow to defend Dr. Ossian Sweet who was mobbed for attempting move into a white neighborhood.

In every generation armed Black folk have used guns in self-defense both prosaically and heroically. And since at least the middle of the 19th century Blacks have embraced a dual policy of nonviolent social change concurrent with a clear endorsement of individual self-defense. This approach is vividly illustrated in Martin Luther King’s commentary during one of the high profile debates about the implications of the approach. After affirming the strategy of nonviolence in pursuit of group goals King says this:

Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi … . When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.

http://libertylawsite.org/2012/12/07/gu ... t-origins/

[williatw]

Gun Control’s Racist Origins

So it is no surprise that for most of our history, the Black community from the leadership to the grassroots has explicitly and aggressively endorsed the right of armed self-defense and firearms ownership. Kentucky firebrand Ida B. Wells urged that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Negro home.” The first generation of legal battles by the NAACP were centered on defending Blacks who had used firearms in self-defense – e.g., hiring Clarence Darrow to defend Dr. Ossian Sweet who was mobbed for attempting move into a white neighborhood.

In every generation armed Black folk have used guns in self-defense both prosaically and heroically. And since at least the middle of the 19th century Blacks have embraced a dual policy of nonviolent social change concurrent with a clear endorsement of individual self-defense. This approach is vividly illustrated in Martin Luther King’s commentary during one of the high profile debates about the implications of the approach. After affirming the strategy of nonviolence in pursuit of group goals King says this:

Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi … . When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.

http://libertylawsite.org/2012/12/07/gu ... t-origins/

Or in an even broader sense...the way Capone and the other mobsters were able to corrupt and virtually take over cities like NY and Chicago, even before prohibition. They got their start before prohibition in things like "protection rackets". If you were a store/business owner and Capone or his thugs show up demanding payment, disarmed as you were in NY and Chicago you had little recourse accept to pay them. If you resisted unarmed you would have been beaten or worse, and/or your business destroyed. You couldn't as the constitution should have allowed arm yourself, your employees, even form a protection militia of fellow business owners to protect yourself from the criminals. If you had the city gov would have come down on you like a ton of bricks. It was the gov in those cities who rendered their citizens disarmed, wouldn't allow them to use deadly force to protect their own property, and then the corrupted police failed to protect them from the criminal thugs. The only thing Capone had to worry about was his fellow mobsters, the city/state gov were corrupted, the people disarmed by the state. I am sure they had organized crime in say Texas then and now, but don't seem to recall hearing about them being able to control things to the degree it got in NY or Chicago.

[Diogenes]

Or in an even broader sense...the way Capone and the other mobsters were able to corrupt and virtually take over cities like NY and Chicago, even before prohibition. They got their start before prohibition in things like "protection rackets". If you were a store/business owner and Capone or his thugs show up demanding payment, disarmed as you were in NY and Chicago you had little recourse accept to pay them. If you resisted unarmed you would have been beaten or worse, and/or your business destroyed. You couldn't as the constitution should have allowed arm yourself, your employees, even form a protection militia of fellow business owners to protect yourself from the criminals. If you had the city gov would have come down on you like a ton of bricks. It was the gov in those cities who rendered their citizens disarmed, wouldn't allow them to use deadly force to protect their own property, and then the corrupted police failed to protect them from the criminal thugs. The only thing Capone had to worry about was his fellow mobsters, the city/state gov were corrupted, the people disarmed by the state. I am sure they had organized crime in say Texas then and now, but don't seem to recall hearing about them being able to control things to the degree it got in NY or Chicago.

Good point. I recall reading some months back, an article regarding how New York originally created Gun Control laws because they didn't like people getting into fights with the party bosses' goons. How's a party Boss going to break some heads when the head's owners shoot their goons?

I believe that so long as an adult individual is acquainted with normal and accepted safety practices and legal responsibility, they should be lawfully able to carry a firearm if they want one. Firearms are the great protector of freedom and liberty, whether the threat be from an out of control government or some other criminal.

[Diogenes]

This Is Why You Never, Ever Break Into a Boxer’s Home

A suspected burglar got more than he could handle when he attempted to break into an Oklahoma City home, which ended up being inhabited by a boxing and kickboxing trainer — and apparently a good one.

Jonathan Wise, 19, was arrested earlier this month with two black and bloodshot eyes and in need of stitches for other injuries. He reportedly tried to rob the home of Norm Houston, according to police.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is ... xers-home/

[williatw]

Illinois Concealed Carry Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appellate Court

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 78114.html


"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."
He continued: "Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."



A victory for the people of Illinois...bet Obama and Ron Emanuel are very displeased. I wonder if the Illinois legislature and Governor Quinn don't have a concealed carry law on the books in the court mandated 180 days, with the State concealed carry ban law now rescinded by the Federal court, does that make "constitutional carry" legal in Illinois?

[Diogenes]

Texas school where teachers carry guns prepared to protect students

Besides special locks and security cameras, an undisclosed number of staff members and teachers carry concealed handguns.

Thweatt said the "guardian plan," which drew international attention when it was implemented in 2008, definitely enhances student safety.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14 ... rylink=cpy



This is how it's done people.

[williatw]

Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-g ... /id/467903

...Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview Saturday...

...there is a “very good chance” the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns.

And yet no one in the media except Lott seem prepared to point out the obviously fact that the "gun free zones" sealed those unfortunate children's and adults fate, however well intentioned they were. The example of the principal and the school psychogist both of who bravely died trying in vain to protect their young charges. They didn't lack the courage or the will to defend them, they were denied the effective means by being disarmed by the state.