posted by geeblock

I don't want to get into a 50 page argument, but are we just glossing over the fact that what he was saying wasn't true?

(if you believe its true thats fine i definitely dont want to argue about it. Imo not only isn't it not true, but from my knowledge and what i have read throughout my life its actually quite the opposite.)

Since the Civil War, people, groups, organizations have been fighting for black people to obtain and keep all the rights that everybody else does. One of the things that Vivek Ramaswamy touched upon, but was overtalked by Don Lemon, was the fact that the NRA has been a major proponent of gun rights for black people. Since its inception. It's that old saying about how the 2nd Amendment secures our 1st Amendment. This is what Vivek Ramaswamy was referring to.

There is a myth that the NRA was formed to fight the KKK, which is certainly not true, but I think that's the main thing that Don Lemon was getting mixed up on. To be fair, that can be easily mixed up by anybody. 

But back to VR's point, the NRA was one of the big players in the fight to make sure that black people could have guns, and by extension ensure their other rights.

Don Lemon seems like a very unhappy guy.

posted by geeblock

I don't want to get into a 50 page argument, but are we just glossing over the fact that what he was saying wasn't true?

(if you believe its true thats fine i definitely dont want to argue about it. Imo not only isn't it not true, but from my knowledge and what i have read throughout my life its actually quite the opposite.)

You got one thing right in this reply, we disagree.

I will refer to CenterBHS’ replay as it is spot on and no sense in just repeating it.

He literally told Vivek that he isn’t black enough and you are defending him. Be better Geeblock.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Since the Civil War, people, groups, organizations have been fighting for black people to obtain and keep all the rights that everybody else does. One of the things that Vivek Ramaswamy touched upon, but was overtalked by Don Lemon, was the fact that the NRA has been a major proponent of gun rights for black people. Since its inception. It's that old saying about how the 2nd Amendment secures our 1st Amendment. This is what Vivek Ramaswamy was referring to.

There is a myth that the NRA was formed to fight the KKK, which is certainly not true, but I think that's the main thing that Don Lemon was getting mixed up on. To be fair, that can be easily mixed up by anybody. 

But back to VR's point, the NRA was one of the big players in the fight to make sure that black people could have guns, and by extension ensure their other rights.

I personally disagree that the NRA post civil war and especially in the 1960's was supportive of blacks being armed.  Especially the black panther party.  If you have some links i would love to learn more about it.  I personally looked for as much info as i could find yesterday, much of it published by the NRA.  In their own biographies and histories of their organization , I find no information about black people or any claims by them to have helped black people anywhere.  In my whole life I have never heard anyone make this claim ever anywhere.

from their Wiki Page

Lack of advocacy for black gun owners

The NRA has been accused of insufficiently defending African-American gun rights and of providing muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners.[321][322][323][324][325][326][327] Others argue that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is a consequence of their reluctance to criticize law enforcement, noting NRA support for Otis McDonald and Shaneen Allen.[325][328]

In a well-publicized 2016 case, Philando Castile, an African-American and legal gun owner, was fatally shot by a police officer during a traffic stop while reaching for his wallet.[323][329] Castile had a valid firearm permit and informed the police officer of his gun prior to the shooting.[323][330] According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting.[323] Other gun rights advocates as well as some NRA members voiced similar criticisms.[323] In a delayed response to the shooting the NRA stated, the death was "a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided."[331]

Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there are historical precedents to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, stating that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by immigrants and racial minorities.

posted by justincredible

I guess I should be ashamed to admit I actually like Tucker Carlson but I’m not. This obviously means I agree with everything he’s ever said about anything. 

I don't mind Tucker.

posted by geeblock

I personally disagree that the NRA post civil war and especially in the 1960's was supportive of blacks being armed.  Especially the black panther party.  If you have some links i would love to learn more about it.  I personally looked for as much info as i could find yesterday, much of it published by the NRA.  In their own biographies and histories of their organization , I find no information about black people or any claims by them to have helped black people anywhere.  In my whole life I have never heard anyone make this claim ever anywhere.

from their Wiki Page

Lack of advocacy for black gun owners

The NRA has been accused of insufficiently defending African-American gun rights and of providing muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners.[321][322][323][324][325][326][327] Others argue that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is a consequence of their reluctance to criticize law enforcement, noting NRA support for Otis McDonald and Shaneen Allen.[325][328]

In a well-publicized 2016 case, Philando Castile, an African-American and legal gun owner, was fatally shot by a police officer during a traffic stop while reaching for his wallet.[323][329] Castile had a valid firearm permit and informed the police officer of his gun prior to the shooting.[323][330] According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting.[323] Other gun rights advocates as well as some NRA members voiced similar criticisms.[323] In a delayed response to the shooting the NRA stated, the death was "a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided."[331]

Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there are historical precedents to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, stating that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by immigrants and racial minorities.

No claims of helping black people?

Otis McDonald case that went to the Supreme Court. He was an elderly black veteran who lived in Chicago and armed himself due to his neighborhood being taken over by gangs. The 2010 Chicago gun ban disarmed him. The US Supreme Court case, with the NRA backed publicly and financially, got rid of the ban and the lead plaintiff was an elderly black man.

In 1975 Gerald Ford's Attorney General set a policy to disarm citizens in urban cities if their crime rates hit certain numbers. This was fought against by the NRA as stripping urban citizens their 2A rights just based off crime statistics. This policy was dismissed before the lawsuits came about.  Do you think they were only protecting WHITE urban citizens? Or do you realize a higher percentage of urban citizens are people of color?

The AG also pushed for a prohibitive tax on "cheap" guns like the "Saturday Night Special" specifically because they were bought/used by poor people in poor neighborhoods and if they put a punitive tax on it, it would essentially eliminate them from these people since they couldn't afford them anymore. The NRA fought this as well, and who do you believe if affected more in poor urban areas? White people or POC?  

Not to mention many of their members and board members marched in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, Charlton Heston, Roy Innis, Wayne LaPierre, etc were all major players in the NRA and on the board, and marched in the 1960s for Civil Rights in places like Selma, AL. 

It's almost like you try hard to find everything racist and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Edit, since you specifically asked for a link from the NRA itself, and you said you researched their own publications...yet it took me 30 seconds on google to find this....

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/content/those-who-call-the-nra-racist-dont-know-our-history/

posted by jmog

No claims of helping black people?

Otis McDonald case that went to the Supreme Court. He was an elderly black veteran who lived in Chicago and armed himself due to his neighborhood being taken over by gangs. The 2010 Chicago gun ban disarmed him. The US Supreme Court case, with the NRA backed publicly and financially, got rid of the ban and the lead plaintiff was an elderly black man.

In 1975 Gerald Ford's Attorney General set a policy to disarm citizens in urban cities if their crime rates hit certain numbers. This was fought against by the NRA as stripping urban citizens their 2A rights just based off crime statistics. This policy was dismissed before the lawsuits came about.  Do you think they were only protecting WHITE urban citizens? Or do you realize a higher percentage of urban citizens are people of color?

The AG also pushed for a prohibitive tax on "cheap" guns like the "Saturday Night Special" specifically because they were bought/used by poor people in poor neighborhoods and if they put a punitive tax on it, it would essentially eliminate them from these people since they couldn't afford them anymore. The NRA fought this as well, and who do you believe if affected more in poor urban areas? White people or POC?  

Not to mention many of their members and board members marched in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, Charlton Heston, Roy Innis, Wayne LaPierre, etc were all major players in the NRA and on the board, and marched in the 1960s for Civil Rights in places like Selma, AL. 

It's almost like you try hard to find everything racist and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Edit, since you specifically asked for a link from the NRA itself, and you said you researched their own publications...yet it took me 30 seconds on google to find this....

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/content/those-who-call-the-nra-racist-dont-know-our-history/

I was aware of otis but that is a far cry from arming black people and helping them get their rights after the civil war and throughout the 60's. 

I had also read the article you supplied.

Niether add up to the NRA fighting for slaves after the civil war or helping blacks fight for their rights in the 60's.  Its just factually incorrect but i appreciate your input.

 literally the only time the NRA supported any restrictions on open carry or any type of gun restrictions it had to do with POC.  

I never called the NRA racist and neither did Lemon, but to say there were any groups supporting blacks having weapons after the civil war and during the civil unrest of the 60's is inaccurate.  After the civil war blacks then faced 150 years of jim crow.  Blacks who tried to assert these new rights were often lynched or had their towns burned.  The NRA 100% supported gun restrictions in California when the Black panthers were holding armed protests and open carrying.

posted by geeblock

I was aware of otis but that is a far cry from arming black people and helping them get their rights after the civil war and throughout the 60's. 

I had also read the article you supplied.

Niether add up to the NRA fighting for slaves after the civil war or helping blacks fight for their rights in the 60's.  Its just factually incorrect but i appreciate your input.

 literally the only time the NRA supported any restrictions on open carry or any type of gun restrictions it had to do with POC.  

I never called the NRA racist and neither did Lemon, but to say there were any groups supporting blacks having weapons after the civil war and during the civil unrest of the 60's is inaccurate.  After the civil war blacks then faced 150 years of jim crow.  Blacks who tried to assert these new rights were often lynched or had their towns burned.  The NRA 100% supported gun restrictions in California when the Black panthers were holding armed protests and open carrying.

You just said "no evidence of NRA helping black people", I supply a link to the NRA helping black people, you then change the goal posts to "well, I did read that but that's not enough"

You can't make this shit up anymore Geeblock, why even try to have a discussion with people if you are just going to be intellectually dishonest once proven wrong?

posted by jmog

You just said "no evidence of NRA helping black people", I supply a link to the NRA helping black people, you then change the goal posts to "well, I did read that but that's not enough"

You can't make this shit up anymore Geeblock, why even try to have a discussion with people if you are just going to be intellectually dishonest once proven wrong?

Im not sure if you even listened to his orginal quote and the point he was trying to make or that you even understand it.  Maybe you should go back and listen to it.  None of the cases you mention have anything to do with supporting blacks being armed to be able to bear arms against their oppressors and secure their rights.  The civil war ended in 1865.  You post a link about fighting against a tax on 38 specials?  That helped blacks fight for their civil rights?  Im not going to argue with you, if you think the NRA played a fundamental part in Black people securing their civil rights god bless.  

also i see you focused on "no evidence of helping black people and ignored the point of the whole conversation as usual"  I meant supporting of black people being armed after the civil war and during the civil rights movement and black people defending themselves with guns.  this did not happen.

posted by geeblock

Im not sure if you even listened to his orginal quote and the point he was trying to make or that you even understand it.  Maybe you should go back and listen to it.  None of the cases you mention have anything to do with supporting blacks being armed to be able to bear arms against their oppressors and secure their rights.  The civil war ended in 1865.  You post a link about fighting against a tax on 38 specials?  That helped blacks fight for their civil rights?  Im not going to argue with you, if you think the NRA played a fundamental part in Black people securing their civil rights god bless.  

Again, you get proved wrong and you move the goal posts. You literally said there is zero evidence of the NRA ever helping black people.

I proved you wrong and then you say "well I read that but that's not enough".

Just be honest, for once.

posted by jmog

Again, you get proved wrong and you move the goal posts. You literally said there is zero evidence of the NRA ever helping black people.

I proved you wrong and then you say "well I read that but that's not enough".

Just be honest, for once.

ok jmog... yes without the NRA black people would never have gotten their rights... said no one ever.  Zero groups after the civil war wanted black people to have guns.  Same during the 50-60's.   You post a link from 2010 and claim victory, link from 1975  omg geeblock..  The conversation was after the CIVIL WAR... Civil RIGHTS MOVEMENT!!!   you really cant follow discussions.. you just like to make up arguments.

posted by geeblock

ok jmog... yes without the NRA black people would never have gotten their rights... said no one ever.  Zero groups after the civil war wanted black people to have guns.  Same during the 50-60's.   You post a link from 2010 and claim victory, link from 1975  omg geeblock..  The conversation was after the CIVIL WAR... Civil RIGHTS MOVEMENT!!!   you really cant follow discussions.. you just like to make up arguments.

I never said the NRA was the only reason black people had any rights. Don't put words in my mouth. 

You said something, you were wrong. Own it.

I never, not once in my life, said that the NRA was the only reason blacks have 2A rights. If I did please quote it on here. If not just stop making shit up that didn't happen.

I said they have helped black people as well, I gave a link giving evidence to that fact.

Your statement that ZERO groups wanted black people to have guns is quite asinine, it's as stupid as saying ALL groups wanted blacks to have guns. 

posted by jmog

I never said the NRA was the only reason black people had any rights. Don't put words in my mouth. 

You said something, you were wrong. Own it.

I never, not once in my life, said that the NRA was the only reason blacks have 2A rights. If I did please quote it on here. If not just stop making shit up that didn't happen.

I said they have helped black people as well, I gave a link giving evidence to that fact.

Your statement that ZERO groups wanted black people to have guns is quite asinine, it's as stupid as saying ALL groups wanted blacks to have guns. 

Listen man im not going to argue with you the conversation was about after the civil war and civil rights movments.. you posted a bunch of stuff I read but didnt include because it was more in the modern era...if you feel like the NRA as a big part of blacks getting their basic human rights then god bless, but that was the conversation and that was the argument that was made in the interview.  once again you go off the rails about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the conversaition.

This thread is at least entertaining

posted by Verbal Kint

This thread is at least entertaining

posted by majorspark

The Nile river, strategic Red Sea coastline, valuable minerals, impoverished population, foreign powers jockeying for influence. 

BREAKING: World Health Organization says there is an 'extremely serious' situation and 'huge biological risk' after a lab containing virus samples falls into control of Sudan fighters

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) April 25, 2023

posted by iclfan2

BREAKING: World Health Organization says there is an 'extremely serious' situation and 'huge biological risk' after a lab containing virus samples falls into control of Sudan fighters

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) April 25, 2023

Well, Biden just announced he's running and he'll need an excuse to stay locked in his basement....

posted by Verbal Kint

This thread is at least entertaining

Can't we all just get along. 

:)

I suspect that it's the search words being used that is prohibitive to finding what you're looking for.

When people think of the NRA, they tend to think of just the 'nra' when in fact, it charters a shit ton of chartered outliers that are under it's affiliation. And while the NRA has compromised numerous times over the years (think Chicago), using incrementalism to keep going towards the goal, most of these charters did not. And were quite successful in their advocating, arguing and lobbying. In fact, the NRA has often worked with the NAACP. One of the biggest examples of this happening is when Robert Williams worked in and with both in regards to the Kissing case. He is one of the people who chartered with the NRA in order to start fighting back against the KKK (which is where the myth of how the NRA started probably comes from, not sure). Maneuvering around like this happened not only in New York (where the NRA started) but all over the south. And there were/are other gun rights advocacies as well, it's just that the NRA gets all the attention. 

I don't know anything about the NRA's involvement, or to what extent, with the Black Panthers. Maybe I'll get into that tonight if I get a lunch break.

I'd like to know WTF are the democrats in DC even thinking.

AOC has already made it quite clear that she wants government to strong arm social medias to censor and ban. That's well established. But she has just recently had a talk with Jen Psaki saying that she wants government to ban FOX news hots and go after them for incitement. Also dems have very recently gone after Matt Taibbi, threatening to imprison him, because he accidently mixed up CIS with CISA in the twitter files, which he ultimately corrected.

Are the dems doing this in the hopes that it will help keep Biden in office? WHY... are they being so authoritarian and heavy handed when it comes to journalists, reporters, media personalities, etc.?! 
Who was President when the Julian Assange thing went down? Barrack Obama? A democrat?
The dems are building an extremely bad history with all of this and I think it's going to catch up to them at some point. 

Everybody here can have their own ideas and opinions about things like what Chelsea Manning did, Julian Assange, Matt Taibbi, Tucker Carlson, whoever. But the democrats, as a party, have real political power and boy have they been flexing it. It's especially interesting to me how dems shit their pants over republicans all the time, calling them every sort of ist/phobe imaginable, but are apparently blind in one eye when it comes to things like this. Absolutely amazing.

Now they are not going to have any presidential primaries. Their only going in one direction and it's not good. For anybody.

posted by CenterBHSFan

I'd like to know WTF are the democrats in DC even thinking.

AOC has already made it quite clear that she wants government to strong arm social medias to censor and ban. T.

As always, it's only about winning elections - don't you know that Fox lies are the only thing keeping Dems from winning every election?

Tongue in cheek, but it's not far from the truth.  There are only a handful of conservative outlets with any audience that counter the Dem narrative.  And the support for their agenda is typically not grounded in science or logic, which is why they seek to squash debate and dissent.

And that all sort of brings us back to "so, what, your solution is to just do nothing?!?".  No, however absent a practical and feasible solution, the first rule is "do no harm".  And you have one party that believes in the omniscient Big Gubmit, and actively manufactures "problems" in need of fixing.  And the rub is they never fix anything, because you can't fix a problem that doesn't exist, and even if you could voters prefer people that promise to fix shit rather than people that actually fixed something.

They’re also doubling down on the idea that government schools know what’s best for children.

Our children are our nation’s future, and they are in the hands of teachers.

This White House will always have their back. pic.twitter.com/nryyVunFpV

— President Biden (@POTUS) April 25, 2023

posted by iclfan2

They’re also doubling down on the idea that government schools know what’s best for children.

Our children are our nation’s future, and they are in the hands of teachers.

This White House will always have their back. pic.twitter.com/nryyVunFpV

— President Biden (@POTUS) April 25, 2023

Agreed. This is one of the reasons why there is such a pushback against teachers/unions that are more worried about how many tissues a child brings to school and what their pronouns are rather than being worried about reading comprehension, ability to do math or even if students can tell the difference between paying interest on a loan or paying down the principal of a loan.

Joe Biden has been making it a point to say that teachers need a raise. With so many Americans struggling financially right now, yes, let's focus on taking more from them:

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1650542484852813834?s=20

posted by CenterBHSFan

I'd like to know WTF are the democrats in DC even thinking.

AOC has already made it quite clear that she wants government to strong arm social medias to censor and ban. That's well established. But she has just recently had a talk with Jen Psaki saying that she wants government to ban FOX news hots and go after them for incitement. Also dems have very recently gone after Matt Taibbi, threatening to imprison him, because he accidently mixed up CIS with CISA in the twitter files, which he ultimately corrected.

Are the dems doing this in the hopes that it will help keep Biden in office? WHY... are they being so authoritarian and heavy handed when it comes to journalists, reporters, media personalities, etc.?! 
Who was President when the Julian Assange thing went down? Barrack Obama? A democrat?
The dems are building an extremely bad history with all of this and I think it's going to catch up to them at some point. 

Everybody here can have their own ideas and opinions about things like what Chelsea Manning did, Julian Assange, Matt Taibbi, Tucker Carlson, whoever. But the democrats, as a party, have real political power and boy have they been flexing it. It's especially interesting to me how dems shit their pants over republicans all the time, calling them every sort of ist/phobe imaginable, but are apparently blind in one eye when it comes to things like this. Absolutely amazing.

Now they are not going to have any presidential primaries. Their only going in one direction and it's not good. For anybody.

The leftist's ideas are bankrupt and world history is littered with their corpses, so they know they have to control the message in order to retain power, hence the assaults on the truth seekers/promoters, and the fascist attempts at censoring and silencing speech.  

Better buckle up because it is obvious it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if ever. 

How is this real life?

Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm says she supports requiring the U.S. military to adopt an ALL-electric vehicle fleet by 2030 pic.twitter.com/pw4F3jmrpo

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 26, 2023