Crime fears push residents into action

Quite the conundrum. On the one hand, the availability of guns to all who would wish to do harm makes me think – as you do, Mr. Badie – that I should take advantage of this availability and purchase a gun to use to help myself and neighbors in need. On the other hand, if you restrict the purchase of guns, then you remove availability but you also remove the ability to protect oneself from those who would obtain the guns illegally. Crime rates would go down, I’m sure, the extent to which cannot be quantified until the plan goes into effect. What, then, would you say to victims who, by law, were unable to protect themselves?

I guess my conclusion is that those who would intend to do harm will do so, whether or not guns are available, legally or no. Unless and until mankind can find a way to identify and remove criminal/violent tendencies from the species, this conundrum will exist. The question, then, is: Do I have the right to defend myself?

I personally don’t like guns. I am, however, considering purchasing one for my protection. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Remove the desperate from the times, and it becomes a non-issue. Good luck accomplishing that.

The problem with guns is that it removes the need for one to become personally and physically involved in the violence he commits. It’s easier, after all, to fire a bullet from a distance than it is to penetrate a heart with a knife, or bash in a head with a pipe or bat. Less physical, less messy, less of a threat by a potential victim to react. Common sense says that death tolls in war increase as the technology to kill from a distance increases. Apply that logic to individual crime, and….

Well, on the surface, it seems logical that removing this threat from criminals by taking away the advantage of killing from a distance would make sense. The flaw is that criminals don’t act logically, don’t act within the boundaries of common sense. If they did, there wouldn’t be crime.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t, I guess.

• Link
• Report this comment

They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from it.

• Link
• Report this comment

There seems to be some sort of shoot out every other day lately. That’s why I always carry my umbrella as a weapon. I also caryy a gun that fires backwards, in case some crook ever finds my gun, gets mad, and shoots me with it, he gets the big surprise.

Of course, I always carry one extra ounce of insurance against muggers: The umbrella that fires backwards.

That’s my ace. That’s what I’m going in with.

Punks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Three officers killed in Pittsburg this morning, more injured. The guy was worried that President Obama may pose a ban on weapons, moral of the story kids, start blowing people away before the ban hits.

Assault weapons ban, no way, we all should be allowed to blow away as many people as we can in the shortest amount of time.

That said, if the county would ever get the finger printing machine back up and running, I could renew my permit and my wife could get hers.

Second, there is no real renewal anymore, you have to start all over again? I never realized my fingerprints changed in ten years and back then it was the old ink and roll.

What I don’t like is there is no required training course, even South Carolina has one, any legal fool can by a pistol, take it home, load it and leave it in the nightstand where Little Johnny just found a new toy.

Required traing is not a restriction, just plain common sense. But any state where the use of seat belts is not required in pick-up trucks, guess there isn’t much common sense around.

• Link
• Report this comment

nana, no it was five years, but the last time I renewed I just had to fill out a form, not start all over again.

I know it was a domestic violence call, don’t know if he had a history, but those calls are dangerous. You have no idea on what you may walk in on. What was it, four in Oakland two weeks ago, now these three, seven, scary.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d say you might run into trouble on “requiring training” nana, though, I’m all for responsible gun ownership and use. As to this guy in Pittsburgh the facts – yeah those pesky facts that usually get in the way of a good tall-tale based on hearsay story – are vague at the moment. First indications are the guy had some emotional problems in his past and his joblessness seems to have played a big role in his actions. Second, this thing seems to have been pre-meditated, it wasn’t simply a case of domestic violence spur of the moment. Third, fact remains law abiding citizens more than ever need their second amendment right protected from government and the criminals that never abide by any gun laws that always find a way to have guns and use them to commit crimes. Fourth, the question you have to ask yourself is this nana: If someone goes off the deep-end so to speak like these last two individuals determined to kill, would your odds of survival be better with a weapon or without one?

I know I feel alot safer in knowing a few of my neighbors have guns, just in case some heavily armed vest-wearing loony snaps and starts killing people around us at least one of us will get off a head shot.

LT, Obumer’s deficit spending that some project will double the debt in five years and triple it in ten is gun control. We’ll have to pawn all of our guns just to pay his taxes, after paying for inflation of course.

Can we replace our so-called sober Congress with our drunken Navy sailors to save the country a few bucks please?

• Link
• Report this comment

LT: Don’t know the demographics on the criminals. Don’t care.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Nana: Are you serious or just trying to be facetious?? Your happy face comes through as phoney. While you scurry to look up that word, let me just reiterate for you…Whether you or anybody else hates the man, his policies, his ideas, his wit, intelligence, or his swagger…NOBODY CARES! President Obama has been in office for all of two months;suffice it to say, the constant whiners obviously were not his supporters from the get. I mean that’s a no brainer right? So, basically stop crying, move on, and get over it!

Same goes for me and my OBAMA 09. Do you really think I care what YOU think?? Thanks for informing me he’s already in office though, cause I wasn’t too sure. I want you to feel special knowing that the next line is for your eyes only.

OBAMA 09

• Link
• Report this comment

Here you go nana

Within minutes, all three officers were fatally shot by the subject of the domestic call, later identified as Richard “Pop” Poplawski, 22. A dishonorably charged Marine, he adhered to a number of right-wing conspiracy theories and expressed fears of a “Zionist nation” revoking his right to own guns.

Police said he’d also spent the night “drinking”.

Police said Poplawski knew his mother had called 911. He apparently lay in wait for them, armed with an AK-47 assault-style rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a revolver and wearing a bulletproof vest.

Wasn’t Obumer for the “D.C. gun ban”. As I recall there was a case where a D.C. cop couldn’t have a functional gun in his house? Was there a court case on that one?

Citing DC v Heller

That old second amendment fanatical Supreme Court, they are probably Obumer haters

President Obama endorsed a handgun ban in Illinois during 1996, despite its proven failure in Washington, D.C. Although Mr. Obama claims he does not favor a handgun ban, “his signature was on a document endorsing a state ban of the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois”.

Republican Enlists 65 Pro-Gun Dems to Oppose Assault Weapon Ban

WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Mike Ross (AR-04) led a group of 65 pro-gun Democrats in denouncing recent comments made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s on February 25 that the Obama administration intended to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

The group of 65 pro-gun Democrats, led by Ross, sent a letter to the Attorney General on March 18, 2009, urging him to abandon any effort to reinstate the assault weapons ban and to focus instead on effective law enforcement strategies to enforce the nation’s current laws against violent criminals and drug traffickers.

“Firearms are an important means of self defense and, as an avid hunter and outdoorsmen, an important part of our way of life,” said Ross. “I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and will continue to fight any efforts in Washington that restrict our right to own and bear arms.”

The group argued that the ban was ineffective during the 10 years it was law, and that crime began falling before the ban was passed in 1994, and continued falling during and after the ban. The last time the murder rate was at its current level was more than forty years ago. Even the Urban Institute study of the ban’s effectiveness mandated by the 103rd Congress found that it could only have a limited effect because “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

“Criminals will get guns whether we have gun control laws or not. Regulating guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of those trying to defend themselves from criminals,” said Ross.

I’m with you nana I don’t hate Obumer but I extremely dislike like Obumer’s socialists policies and his gun control issue is one of them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Evans, everything you mentioned helps. I hope you don’t use the wordy lawyer talk in every day life, but you were on the subject and quickly made your point. Thanks for that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course you don’t care about the demographics of the criminals Badie, that would be too much like journalism for you.

The key to solving a problem is identification of the variables.

LT5000

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey now…..whose crying? Remember this is an opinion blog not just your opinion but anyone who wants to comment. You attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Get over yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

About 100 thousand americans are shot every year by firearms. (1/3 perish)

I would remind every blogger here to clean their guns regularly. Join the NRA. And talk gun safety to as many people as will listen. (even if you have to force them to listen at the point of a gun).

• Link
• Report this comment

nana,

This Pittsburgh guy was on the fringe and attracted to, if not directly involved with, extremist groups (ethnocentric of course). The two things both these two recent shooting nut-jobs definitely have or half had in common now, is their narcissism and a challenged self-esteem. There were plenty of warnings they gave off that should have caught someone’s attention that these two had real serious mental issues which posed a potential for public endangerment.

Real simple, if you see a problem in your neighborhood tell a cop what you know. I got an idea police throughout America are going to watch individuals that they know have issues very differently in the future after these recent shooting events and this case of the guy in Washington State who killed his children and himself in the midst of a domestic dispute.

With the economy in a mess and job losses occurring, that is sometimes all the tipping point people on the fringe need to push them over the line.

• Link
• Report this comment

LT5000, You can’t shoot a gun accurately while you’re running away in the opposite direction. Kinda like what you did when Rick called you out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Smith,

I understand all too well that the federal judiciary will not step in unless a justiciable legal issue is raised, but know that if the assault weapons ban (”AWB”) passes, pro-gun groups will engage in vetting potential plaintiffs for impact litigation that will address head-on the constitutionality of the AWB (a question I think we have to have answered in a Post-Heller world). Know and believe that Heller, Brown v. Board and darn near every other significant piece of socially significant Supreme Court jurisprudence since 1954 has been a part of a broader political strategy crafted by legal advocates. Let’s not be naive enough to think that these matters pop up randomly and that NRA legal counsel is not already preparing themselves for a battle beginning in our District Courts if the AWB passes. Did you think Heller was random? Of course, not (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html). Believe me you, if the NRA feels that the Barry O overstepped his boundaries, the federal judiciary will be taking up cases on the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban soon after it passes. The Courts don’t step in unsolicited on these matters, but they won’t have to because advocacy groups are hard at work manufacturing impact litigation.

Obama’s current position has always been that he believes that there can be reasonable, constitutional restrictions on handgun use, and Heller actually confirms his view. He inartfully expressed his thoughts before, but that’s the crux of his stance on gun control post-Heller (which means we have what we need to protect ourselves). We already know what he and Holder want to see in place (see my previous posting), and they’ll surely be litigation on these matters when or if they pass regarding their constitutionality. Their proposals are arguably constitutional, but Heller now provides some guidance as to how we can or cannot restrict handguns and more legal guidance, I think, is necessary on the constitutionality of the AWB. I’d bet that the Obama Administration and most Americans could agree on that.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m not waiting on Obumer to get his and the liberal Democrat’s anti-gun legislation passed and then proceed to the courts to reverse his and the liberal Democrats gun control agenda (I don’t need to see your previous posting when you obviously choose to ignore mine that counters your arguments completely). Congressional Democrats are already trying to renew ABW based on happenings going on in Mexico, which is a red herring and they know it. Now they will turn to these two poster kids for AWB and gun control to push their offensive, since the liberal’s 90% argument has been blown away.

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

Source: Fox News

I disagree with your idea and the limitation you would put on the second amendment and your assessment on what limits most Americans favor being imposed on their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Most sensible Americans understand murder does not require a gun, not even mass murders require AK-47s or M-16s, which many Americans own and never have, and never likely will use to kill another human being.

The majority of Americans are not the ones who need legal guidance, it is our misguided leaders in Congress and the Courts who choose to ignore what we tell them is Constitutionally acceptable to us who could use the clarity.
Including Obumer’s and anti-gun agenda which is not acceptable nor is it the right answer to his conundrum with gun violence and it will not stop mass murder or massive killing.

Australia experiencing mass murder despite gun control

Howard Nemerov

Austin Gun Rights Examiner

Australia’s most heinous mass murder occurred after their gun ban in 1997.

After the recent article on the addiction of gun control, a reader left this rebuttal:
Odd. In Australia, we have very strict gun control laws, brought in by a conservative government after a gun massacre, of the type that Americans seem to experience every few weeks. Since the laws, we have not had any such massacres…
First, what defines a “massacre,” or more definitively, a mass murder? Australian criminology researcher Jenny Mouzos’s criteria is 4 or more victims per incident.

Mouzos co-authored another paper, in which they documented four mass murders since Australia enacted their gun ban:
Between 1996–97 and 2000–01 there were four mass homicide incidents: two incidents involved four victims (knife and carbon monoxide gas), one incident had five victims (carbon monoxide gas), and another incident fifteen victims (arson/fire).
There seems to be a very elastic definition among gun controllers as to what comprises a massacre. A Violence Policy Center press release calls the 1989 Stockton, California shooting a “massacre,” where a man with a history of mental illness killed five school children. Gun Control Australia notes 32 “gun massacres” where 141 people were killed. This averages out to between 4 and 5 victims per incident. But curiously, after a country enacts massive gun confiscation, mass homicide incidents with between four and 15 victims suddenly do not qualify as “massacres.”

One might as easily conclude that the best way to limit multiple murders is not to disarm, but to arm responsible, law-abiding citizens. Anti-rights supporters deny reality in order to promote an idyllic fantasy of a peacefully disarmed citizenry, but while there have been no mass murders using guns since the Australian gun ban, there have been “massacres” as defined by gun control groups.

In his book The Bias Against Guns, John Lott examined the relationship between gun availability and multiple murders. He concluded:
If right-to-carry laws allow citizens to limit the amount of attacks that still take place, the number of persons harmed should fall relative to the number of shootings… And indeed, that is what we find. The average number of people dying or becoming injured per attack declines by around 50 percent.
Lott also found that both the total number and rate of multiple murders in right-to-carry states are one-third that of restrictive states. In an email interview, he clarified this data by stating:
The simplest numbers showed a 67 percent drop in the number of attacks and about a 79 percent drop in the number of people killed or injured from such attacks. The number of people harmed fell by more than the number of attacks because some attacks that weren’t deterred were stopped in progress by people with guns.
Recently, Australia experienced its worst mass murder in history, and no guns were required:

The Australian prime minister accused arsonists of “mass murder” today as the death toll from the deadliest bushfires in the country’s history reached 135. Officials in Victoria believe some of the 400 fires that reduced towns to blackened ruins may have been deliberately set, or have been helped to jump containment lines. The incinerated towns have been officially declared as crime scenes.
As a perfect example of the denial prevalent in gun control addiction, the reader, whose quote appears earlier in the article, made their statement when a Google search of “Australia mass murder” returns dozens of media reports on the arson murders dating back to February 9, 2009, 48 days before the addiction article.

The next investigative report examines further disparity between anti-rights wishes and reality.

For in-depth analysis of gun control in England and Australia and its consequences, see chapter 2 in Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Michael, I saw the interview that Greta Van Susteran (sp??) had with Hilary Clinton a week or so ago and she (Hilary)made the comment that the drug violence that is going on in Mexico is America’s fault in part due to the guns coming from the US. I later heard the claim that 90% of the guns were coming from America. I missed the piece this a.m. on the news when they indicated they would be dubunking her 90% claim as we were leaving for church. By what you posted I assume that the actual # is 17%….that’s quite a difference. It appears that what might need to be better watched, and maybe regulated are these people who are buying bullet proof vests. I might be wrong but I can’t really think of (at least right now) of anyone that would need a bullet proof vest that isn’t in law enforcement.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another read nana on the liberals anti-gun push

Mexican Drug Violence–Anti-Gunners Lead Witness

As we continue to report, Congress has jumped into the topic of Mexican border violence with both feet, having held 10 different Subcommittee and Full Committee hearings on the topic, with more coming. It has also become clear that anti-gun politicians and groups are intent on using this issue to advance new gun laws.

In the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Drugs and Crime, Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed her attacks on gun owners’ rights. During her remarks, she stated that there are over 2,000 guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. each day. But when she tried to elicit support for that number from a representative from the BATFE, he responded that the number was much lower. Senator Feinstein was clearly unhappy that he would not endorse her anti-gun sound bite.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4713

• Link
• Report this comment

well, think what you may, Morehouse guy. Your college is known for its liberal views and you are just another part of the obvious distraction. I already got my arms, and no- nobody’s going to take them away without some undue holes in their person. Not a cop, not a legistator and definitely not obama. If anyone here thinks for a second that our elected officials are legit…do some looking.

Do you really think mass media ideals give these figureheads their validity? Mass media is owned by banks. The federal reserve is owned by a private party. AIG is now controlled by the government on most levels. Why are we going into another war when Obama told us he was pulling out? Why did he spend the most money in American History?

No, morehouse guy, G20 is indeed a meeting of these elite globalists and can probably be debunked with just a tad bit of reading. Take a look at their website for god sakes, they want to impliment new trade borders, a global currency and agreement on consolidating american soil into their conglomerate. Tinfoil hats? You rhetoric has grown stale and your setup played out, Morehouse. Would you care to debunk these statements or are you just going to hurumph it off as preposterous? OPEN YOUR freaking eyes man. Every day in the white house these bankers are at work reaping wealth while this country closes up shop.

• Link
• Report this comment

Firstly who must ratify that Constitution? Not your Court, my friend and THANK GOD! The Courts and the Congress even your Obumer must listen to the people, eventually. If they that are the government choose to continually ignore the will of the people, we have the right to dismiss our present government and declare a new one that serves us.

Power is derive from where and by what means are we governed: Power is derived from our hands and we are by governed our consent.

I’ll be very happy when the American people rise up and tell this government we have that really is not serving us that this government only exists because We the People say it can exist. You’ll find that in the Declaration of Independence.

The second amendment is all the gun authority I ever needed; Heller was nothing more than affirmation of that amendment.

Laws are helpful only when applied to the lawless, otherwise they are useless to the law abiding and in their defense. Controlling guns will control criminals or stop or reduce crime, which is your argument? At best that is negligible in effect and has been proven otherwise invalid. So I hope you don’t think you brought anything new to fore of benefit to me, I’ve known that other strategies aimed directly at the people who commit crimes has to be the major priority: Whether it is in pursuing the illegal gun sellers and/or illegal buyers but again, it is certainly not in restricting legal purchases of guns by someone like Badie, York or Smith no matter what our weapon of choice.

As for Obumer’s laws – gun laws- he wants enacted not harming me or putting me in danger, HOOEY! I’m not foolish enough to think “an adequate police force” can ever be provided to, as you say, avoid violence( and the framers of the Decalration of Indepenedence and Constitution were also not so foolish). You’ve just witness two police forces defeated, one failed the two minute warning and 13 people lay dead; the other was absolutely clueless as to what they were walking into and 3 cops were killed. That’s no data-data non-sense that is reality on just how quickly deadly violent force can be used. Even with a gun you only have a chance but at least it is better than no chance whatsoever of stopping someone that is going to kill you or others. And truth is a chance often times is all a cop has against an armed criminal.

Why is the operation of our government as the Constitution dictates so objectionable to you?

Are you trying to be facetious, our government is not operating as the Constitution dictates.

• Link
• Report this comment

The only gun control that is needed is on the criminals not those of us that are law abiding citizens and have a right to bear arms.

Your welcome and you can frame that one, nana.

A rubber stamp government has no Constitutional authority to exist, so that is poof enough our government is not operating as the Constitution dictates.

Article four Section four: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union “a republican form of government”, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mark,

Your extra chromosome has obviously affected your memory as well as your ability to put together a coherent thought. Get a high school diploma before you spout.

When are you and your army of 15000 going to clean up the streets of Norcross? I have a feeling it would look more like Pride fest than a paramilitary movement.

LT5000

• Link
• Report this comment

Without the Declaration of Independence the Constitution has no legal standing as we would remain Her Majesty’s now fifty rebellious colonies. I hate it when some liberal thinks they can separate the two documents because they have no argument that will reasonably stand up in support of their anti-second amendment rights agenda. So they only offer more of their oxygen deprived hypocrisies to exhale in exhaustion resorting to a usual round of Supreme Omnipotent Bigotry, as if playing their silly ignorant race game trumps all to kneel before them.

No law has to pass a court challenge until it is brought before a court to decide.

Rick as all others can do as they want, it is their choice to buy and have a gun and their right to protect their lives and that of their families when government fails in its’ obligation to protect their life for whatever reason.

Don’t you love it when a hypocrite that argued against the county using TASERs at the jail as being deadly, now argues for their safety around children! LOL OMG!

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Simth, a columun or two ago I said I would be polite to all, with you on this issue and you’re twisting of my words, add the refusal of answering any simple questions offered, really makes it hard, but I’ll do my best.

“Without the Declaration of Independence the Constitution has no legal standing”, like duh.Unless the King sent a letter back saying all is cool, you dudes and dudettes can have your freedom and we will pull all of our Redcoats out. No man, this country had to fight, fight for themselves for indpedentence. We didn’t have anyone invading us deciding we needed it.

The Second Amendment, whoa, it’s added to the Constitution, it’s an Amendment, wow, the Bill of Rights of Rights were overlooked in the last draft?

“No law has to pass a court challenge until it is brought before a court to decide.”, like duh again, all laws have to pass Constitutional muster,believe or not most meet that standard.

Hypocrite about Tasers? Mr. Smith now you’re starting to be a pain. Five deputies holding down a handcuffed and shackled man is not misuse? Poor training is what I said, there have been more in one this county that have died from it. Thankfully they have finally read the manual

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Simth, a columun or two ago I said I would be polite to all?

Horse-crap you lied again RUG. Good night phony.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is fear the price of freedom? We constantly tout our freedoms to the world, but fear grips us tightly. We are hooked on fear. Our local media dishes up a daily doese of FEAR! Be afraid. Be very afraid. People constantly refer to downtown Atlanta as scary. Saturday I walked throughout downtown. Lots of kids and families were in Olympic Park enjoying themselves. The food court at CNN Center was packed. Where Peachtrree meets International Blvd. throngs of tourist were out and about. Yes there was the occasional homeless bum here and there. Woodruff Park did have its share of homeless enjoying their front porch, but they weren’t bothering anyone. Sometimes I wonder what downtown some of you refer to when you say downtown is so scary. Is it because there are so many poor, black faces down there. Poor people use downtown as free entertainment. This has always been the case.

• Link
• Report this comment

Man, I love Scott’s comment. He hit the nail on the head. His comment is more reality than racial. But I think his comment can be improved.

Morehouse guy, minorities commit most of the street crimes, fill the prisons, and drain the tax bases of major cities. Clean up your neighborhoods. Build your institutions. Quit exploiting the helpless black masses for personal gain. And stay out of the business of white people. It’s the only non-genocidal avenue available to black people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whites are running for the hills again, soon they’re won’t be anywhere to run. In the past month 48 people have died in mass killings, 95% percent commited by whites.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with Nana. The blacks are the real reason for the crime in our area.

• Link
• Report this comment

Excuse me Mark…..when did I say “The blacks are the real reason for the crime in our area.” You apparently have me confused with someone else.

• Link
• Report this comment

Moved to grayson in 1995 – quiet and peaceful. Today was the first time in 14 years that I put my outgoing mail in the mailbox. Between 9 am and 12 noon it was stolen. Snellville, Grayson, Loganville have become ‘hoods and we seem powerless to stop the thugs from taking over.It isn’t always the new kidsonthe block either – many of the hoodlums are kids that grew up here but became surly, disrespectful teens – and their parents don’t try to stop it either.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nana, just take a gander at the Department of Justice’s Uniform Crime Statistics and you’ll see why.

• Link
• Report this comment

Listen Up. This is not a racial thing at all, you cannot blame it on anyone group, as I pointed out, 48 people have died in the past month, the majority killed by Whites, how do you explain it? Gangs for the most part kill gang members, anyone posting here who is a member of a gang (besides the Republican party), that killed someone of late?

Hopefully not, so that leaves us with a bunch of paranoid gun holders who are too afraid to go out after dark, sad as it may seem, they’re the most dangerous to you and I.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] thoughtful column by Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Rick Badie on the ways people are changing their lives to [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

Come on Big Bubba, get with the program. The so-called educated integrationist Negroes betrayed the masses of black people by depriving them of the critical institutions needed to service their basic needs. As a result, the masses of Negroes look to other groups/races of people to provide food, clothing, shelter, employment, etc. Said differently, Negroes depend on other people to sustain their lives. And if forever reason elite individuals in other races/groups fail to adequately provide for the needs of the Negro, a la the homeless on Juniper Street and many others, they have no alternative but to turn to crime or die.

And as long as Negroes as a group have no economy of their own, poverty is a present virus for each and every Negro in America. Whoever is servicing the Negro’s basic needs can activate the virus of poverty on a whim. That’s how so-called wealthy Negroes are controlled.

• Link
• Report this comment

“…the masses of Negroes look to other groups/races of people to provide food, clothing, shelter, employment, etc. Said differently, Negroes depend on other people to sustain their lives.” Good grief, Charles, isn’t that what slavery was all about to begin with? Is there some power in the “magic wand of freedom” that automatically tells previously enslaved people how to be free? Sure Charles (nod-wink-nudge), the white man has done everything in his power since the Emancipation Proclamation and the resulting amendments from the Civil War to ease the transition of the black man from slavery into productive member of society. I mean, it only took 100 years from the end of slavery to the enactment of civil rights legislation to help integrate the black man into “civilized” society.

So what? If a man’s breaking into my house, threatening to rob me at knife point or gun point, threatening assault upon my person, I don’t give a flying f*** about any egregious trangressions society may or may not have committed against him. Crime is crime. I will defend my person and my property. Period. Doesn’t matter if my transgressor’s ancestors were slaves, or hopped across a border without telling anybody else, or maybe he did tell someone else. It doesn’t matter. No one has the right to deprive me of my freedom, property or well-being. We can have touchy-feely conversations over a beverage if you wish, but when the conversation’s over, I’m going to make sure my gun is loaded, that the safety is on, and pray as I walk to my car or lock the doors on my house that no one deprives themselves of their like if they first try to deprive me of my life or my property.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good grief, Good grief, isn’t that what slavery was all about to begin with? It doesn’t matter whether slavery is voluntary or involuntary. And in the case of Negroes today, it’s volunteer slavery.

Is there some power in the “magic wand of freedom” that automatically tells previously enslaved people how to be free? Sure Good Grief (nod-wink-nudge), Pharaoh did everything in his power to retain the services of his slaves, the Children of Israel. God had to send several plagues to break his pernicious desire. And when Pharaoh finally decided to set the Children of Israel free, he suddenly changed his mind and chased them to the Red Sea. That’s when Pharaoh and his army were drowned.

I’m sure that some of the Children of Israel didn’t want to be free. They had been slaves for too long, four hundred years… There is no question that some of the people of God disobeyed Moses and Aaron and went back into Egypt/slavery to integrate with Pharaoh and his people. And I’m sure Pharaoh worked many hours working to make integration look like something other than slavery.

I have absolutely no problem with your second paragraph.

• Link
• Report this comment

Robert A. Heinlein said it best (”Beyond This Horizon”, 1942)

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

• Link
• Report this comment