Blacks are Responsible for More Than 50% of All Homicides...

PCXV

Well-Known Member
I would expect for people to start acknowledging that it's a problem and we, as a society, start addressing that issue. Too many people are acquiescent to the fact that blacks are responsible for more than half of all homicides in the name of persecution and being disenfranchised. Yes, blacks have been persecuted and disenfranchised, I get that! But, what I don't get, is that people, like yourself and others, accept it as the status quo.
The status quo just is. To solve a problem you need to understand it. What gives you the impression it is those seeking to understand the status quo that are fine with it? What do you think people that repeat "blacks commit 50%+ of homocides" are trying to do? Do you think they are trying to blame/demonize black people and dismiss their struggle as a black problem, or do you think they are calling for a comprehensive understanding and equitable solution?
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
You do realize many of the first gun restriction laws were KKK type mentalities putting laws into place which were designed to disarm blacks right?

I sure hope you're not supporting KKK ideas.
the KKK did not want AA to have any weapons. Never have I made such a statement. could you at least try to keep the conversation honest .
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Why didn't I think of that! So, are you saying there's no hope of reducing the homicide rates that black's are responsible for?
Hi, nice to meet you. Is it mere coincidence that blacks have been responsible for more than 50% of all homicides since 1982? Got it! :lol:
True! We have to acknowledge that blacks kill more than any other race/s combined. Then we must ask ourselves, why is this? Blacks have been persecuted and disenfranchised, no doubt about it, but how do we decrease the number of homicides that blacks are disproportionately responsible for?
WOW just WOW.
You must have accidentally saw his big black cock when you busted your wife that day. Did it leave you with your mouth open saying " Oh My fucking god ". Where you amazed that your old lady could take a cock that size ? or pissed that she took a cock that size ? Do you sometimes draw pictures of it ? Shit got you fucked dude
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
How about jail, fines, etc.? If they shoot at police, the police have a right to defensivr force.

BTW, accusations of cognitive dissonance are rich coming from a so-called anarchist that drives on paved public roads, enjoys private property rights, sent his kids to public school, etc.

Be sure to tell your neighbors that if they see your house ablaze in the middle of the night while your family sleeps not to call the fire department because you never explicitly asked them to come or agreed to fund them, plus you don't believe in any implicit social pacts, on top of that if they fail to save your family from all harm you will blame your neighbor for funding murderous thugs.
So, you don't have an argument rebutting that you willingly fund murderers and that you advocate for force against other peaceful people in order to fund ideas you like and they might fund a different way ? Didn't think so. Sad, that you are so blood thirsty and violent.

Now onto your latest post...
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what offensive force and defensive force is. You imply that cops would be using defensive force, because you view disobedience to an edict from a claimed authority as always a valid and punishable thing. You're wrong, it isn't.

That's like saying a runaway slave deserves to be shot, because his running away is breaking the law. Enforcing a law can SOMETIMES be an application of defensive force, many times though it is a case of INITIATING offensive force, despite the badge.

When you have to call the same action two different things depending on who does it, then your argument is suspect. Cops enforcing laws against peaceful people are behaving in a criminal fashion. The reason why is it IS CRIMINAL to fuck with peaceful people, period. Badges don't grant nonexistent rights.

A person who possesses a gun or who possesses marijuana or a thousand chocolate cakes etc. but doesn't use it in a way that it harms another should be left alone. The person who doesn't leave them alone is the one initiating offensive force. That would be the cops in your scenario.

You're welcome.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
There is only a correlation, not a causation and there is thus no reason to target “blacks” specifically unless you are a proper racist, which is the only thing we have to acknowledge here. To answer your question though, you could jump of a high bridge, that would be a good start.
if he was saying the same thing about muslim people you would be clapping like a mad man.

didn't you say we need to literally ban islam, re-educate all thew children, stop them from building any mosques and even repairing existing ones?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
the KKK did not want AA to have any weapons. Never have I made such a statement. could you at least try to keep the conversation honest .
So, you DON'T read Laundry Man times? Okay, I was wrong on that point.

My real point which seemed to go over your head, was some of the very first gun restriction laws were aimed at depriving black people of the choice of how they would defend themselves and what they could own. How will any modern laws when boiled down to their essence be any different? They won't.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So, you DON'T read Laundry Man times? Okay, I was wrong on that point.

My real point which seemed to go over your head, was some of the very first gun restriction laws were aimed at depriving black people of the choice of how they would defend themselves and what they could own. How will any modern laws when boiled down to their essence be any different? They won't.
let's just ban guns for whites then to be fair.

thanks for your first and only good idea ever, klanman.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
So, you DON'T read Laundry Man times? Okay, I was wrong on that point.

My real point which seemed to go over your head, was some of the very first gun restriction laws were aimed at depriving black people of the choice of how they would defend themselves and what they could own. How will any modern laws when boiled down to their essence be any different? They won't.
It did not go over my head smart ass. My point is the type of weapon, not color of skin . Please give the reasoning for owning a AR or a hand held rocket launcher ?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It did not go over my head smart ass. My point is the type of weapon, not color of skin . Please give the reasoning for owning a AR or a hand held rocket launcher ?
You are a free person and you like them. That's all the reason you need.

If you believed in equality of every person, you'd know I don't have the right to prohibit you from having things you want or from wearing those pink panties you like to wear, that's none of my business and if I tried to stop you, you'd have every right to defend yourself.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
You are a free person and you like them. That's all the reason you need.

If you believed in equality of every person, you'd know I don't have the right to prohibit you from having things you want or from wearing those pink panties you like to wear, that's none of my business and if I tried to stop you, you'd have every right to defend yourself.
Let me know when you are serious in your conversation. To easy to kill too many with a weapon that can spit 30 rounds in under 7 seconds.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ban guns for racist whites like you.

decent whites can still own guns. not you though
Well I'm not agreeing with you, but if your policy had been in effect when FDR ordered Americans of Japanese ancestry into domestic prison camps, he'd have had no guns to back up his thuggery now would he?
 
Top