+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
And who decides what the limit is for protection? Should I be able to own a tank?
Is not owning a gun a punishment?
Is he against people taking drugs being punished?
The ex-girlfriend of the Dayton murderer tells her chilling tale
https://medium.com/@_adeliajohnson_/...r-2b7f2d792b68
The White Supremacy Virus by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (U.S. Representative)
There is a difference between white supremacists & white supremacy.
White supremacy is like a virus.
Supremacists are those who have been completely overcome by the disease, but supremacy - the virus - exists on a larger scale beyond just the infected. It also lays dormant.
White supremacy is often subconscious. & Clearly, our nation has not been inoculated. WS is our nation’s original sin; the driving logic of slavery, of Native genocide, of Jim Crow, of segregation, of mass incarceration, of “Send Her Back.”
It never went away. It was just dormant.
Healing ourselves of white supremacy will be hard. It will be hard because it requires us to confront *ourselves.*
We wish it was as simple as denouncing a white hood, a burnt cross, vile language. But we need to address where supremacy *begins,* not just where it ends.
Perhaps more than the obvious last steps of the supremacist,we must examine the nuance of their first steps.
That is a painful inquiry, bc for many, we may see familiarity in those first steps. And that familiarity is very difficult to see + admit. We’d rather not talk about it.
Recognizing white supremacy in ourselves - our institutions, our subconscious, our own past remarks or acts (no matter how consciously unintentional), is what makes the healing work ahead challenging.
But it is not impossible, and confronting it is the only way to move forward.
What this moment is asking of us is to discuss *white supremacy and racism* as much - or possibly more than - *white supremacists and racists.*
When we do that, I believe we will start to make progress.
But it is incredibly important that we recognize that perfectly normal, good people are capable of aiding racism & white supremacy.
Recognizing that is not about pillorying people. It’s about learning to recognize *the virus* & end an oppressive system designed to hurt us *all
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1159254426097467394 was
What do you make of Trump using the shootings for political point scoring?
Making a newly orphaned and injured baby return to the hospital so he could give a thumbs up photo op.
From the First Lady’s twitter account, this appears to be the baby both of whose parents died shielding him from the El Paso shooter. The baby in question was discharged the day before and brought back for Trumps visit. Child is not id’d on @flotus account. But appears to... pic.twitter.com/17L6XQROMS
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 9, 2019
And releasing this video.
My time spent in Dayton and El Paso with some of the greatest people on earth. Thank you for a job well done! pic.twitter.com/TNVDGhxOpo
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2019
This is a pretty brutal takedown of Trump's baby photo op.
https://www.thecut.com/amp/2019/08/t...-shooting.html
I'm just following your own logic.
You said that "it's a fundamental right to own property" - slaves were once property - you'd have been against the abolition of slavery since it's taking away your fundamental right to own property.
I'm slightly worried that you didn't tell me that I'm wrong.
Slaves aren't property now are they ?
I'm not sure how you can compare holding a human being captive with owning a gun.
I own guns and in the past I've handled and used very heavy duty weaponry but I've never committed a crime with them or been irresponsible with them. The guns don't harm anyone unless used to do so by a human being, and that is who is responsible if anyone is harmed.
As far as what anyone might have said about slavery at the time when it was questioned, none of us can say if we're truthful.
It might seem obvious to us now that it's wrong, but you can't apply modern thinking to a different age, or vice versa.
Remember, being pro slavery was the default position of the establishment at the time and that the idea of abolishen was a controversial one at first. If you want me to guess, I'd expect that the people here who get angry about individualists or people questioning the State would be throwing similar stones at abolishenists as they do now at " climate change deniers ".
You have hit the nail on the head. There are laws in place to prevent cars becoming unnecessarily dangerous. We also don't let people drive a car if they are more likely to be a danger to other people when using it, i.e. if they don't possess a license that proves they are save to use it, if they don't possess valid insurance (I imagine gun ownership would go down if you had to take out insurance to pay for any 'accidents' that happen) or if they are deemed to be medically unsafe to drive (medically unsafe to own a gun?).
It is bizarre that there are some background checks in store but not at 'gun shows' and that the resale market has almost no legal restrictions placed on it.
There are lots of options for the USA here and yet they will probably sit on their hands.
No, you've got that completely wrong. It's not that owning property and the right to do so which was changed, it's that the definition of what property is that was changed. The point was that a human being could no longer be considered property.
Of course there already are laws to prevent convicted felons or mentally ill people from owning or having guns, which is obviously a good idea.
You take me up on the use of the word "irresponsible " but I said " committed a crime OR been irresponsible ". No reasonable interpretation of that as a description of mass murder is possible . Of course you have to be responsible with guns in that you don't leave them lying round where the kids can get hold of them or anything.
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "
Which is actually from the Declaration of Independence , but is considered in law to comprise a preamble to the USC, and taken as the legal definition of "inalienable "
Also , since the USC acknowledges and includes State Constitutions, it is reasonable to infer the intention to include God, since each and every State Constitution, ( even California and New York !) does in fact reference God.