Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mother Cocanuts

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

248 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Come on, dude. Crack epidemic in the 1980s, mostly affected black people, society's response was lock up everyone they could. Let the rest murder each other. White people start dying in the opioid epidemic, and society decides we need to react with compassion, focus on treatment and diversion programs.

You may not realize that California's strict gun laws were signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, when the Black Panthers started exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

If you don't see the racially disaparate impact of law enforcement and drug policies, you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, money makes a difference, but skin color absolutely makes a difference. A poor white person may be abused by the police. A poor black person definitely will. A rich white man will almost certainly get treated with kid gloves by police. And maybe a wealthy black man may get treated well too. But tell Michael Bennett or James Blake that their money protects them from police abuse.

Will answer you tomorrow, as best I can.  I don’t disagree entirely, didn’t know the Reagon thing.  I have my own fears that have nothing to do with my own well being, nor do I think anyone should be privileged over another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black folks and white folks need to hang out more and share information.

/White folks missed the lotion summit, Black folks missed the register your weapons conferance

Edited by Manhole Eunuchsbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

That due process of law exists to prevent the arbitrary administration of law is not a weak interpretation of due process. Due process is a standard that applies to all criminal proceedings. Therefore, I don't see how a constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest is a "fairly weak" interpretation of the Constitution. It's literally applying the accepted standard of what constitutes due process of law and applying it to proceedings that are explicitly deemed applicable by the text of the constitution.  

I say it's fairly weak because it has been not nearly as heavily enforced or scrutinized as the 2nd or 1st amendments. It is a right, and should be a strong one, but as we've seen with minorities and 'suspected terrorists' it can be suspended quite quickly for fairly arbitrary reasons, and with little in the way of fights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Remember, the same Americans who elected Trump also elected Obama 4 years prior. And some places went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012 and then went overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016. 

Um, no, this is just wrong. Trump lost by 3 million votes. But if you have some evidence for that assertion, I'd love to see it. No doubt some did cross over, but it's nowhere near the overwhelming majority you make it sound like. And only ONE county voted overwhelmingly for both Obama and Trump: Howard County, Iowa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Will answer you tomorrow, as best I can.  I don’t disagree entirely, didn’t know the Reagon thing.  I have my own fears that have nothing to do with my own well being, nor do I think anyone should be privileged over another.

Here's another example: black men sentenced for longer than white people for same crimes. Controls for age, income, etc.

5 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Um, no, this is just wrong. Trump lost by 3 million votes. But if you have some evidence for that assertion, I'd love to see it. No doubt some did cross over, but it's nowhere near the overwhelming majority you make it sound like. And only ONE county voted overwhelmingly for both Obama and Trump: Howard County, Iowa. 

Trump losing by 3 million votes is fairly immaterial in this example. The evidence I have is that the US elected Obama and also elected Trump. Trump won states that Obama won. 

I'm not saying that there was massive crossover everywhere, though we at least have evidence that it did happen. But your assertion that Trump won because there are people clamoring for authoritarianism is either true only because many of those people ALSO voted for Obama, hoping for authoritarianism, or is false. Which is it? (for the record I suspect strongly it's the former, and the desire for authority to step in and Do The Right Thing is more conservative leaning but is not solely conservative). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I say it's fairly weak because it has been not nearly as heavily enforced or scrutinized as the 2nd or 1st amendments. It is a right, and should be a strong one, but as we've seen with minorities and 'suspected terrorists' it can be suspended quite quickly for fairly arbitrary reasons, and with little in the way of fights.

I see. Our disagreement, then, is semantic, so I won't press the issue further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0