Durbin's Reply

What's the hunt looking like this year in your area? Share!
User avatar
rthomas4
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:07 pm
Location: Hampton, SC

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby rthomas4 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:32 am

The Emancipation Proclamation was the desperate act by a POTUS to generate support for a war that had lost it's popularity. If Lincoln was truly concerned about slavery, why didn't he issue it in 1861, instead of waiting until 1865? The next Executive Order he issued was to form the Freedman's Bureau which in effect was the first welfare program established in the US. Slavery was already a dying institution in the South due to the economic problems associated with it. In point of fact, less than 10% of Southerners even owned slaves, and a large majority of the Southern population was opposed to it's existence. If the Confederacy had been allowed to go it's way, slavery would have been abolished anyhow. The idea of mistreatment of slaves was a false image presented by Harriet Beecher Stowe, who had never even been South of the Mason Dixon Line, and was a total work of fiction. In point of fact, most plantation owners fired overseers ( many of whom came from Northern states) who mistreated the slaves on their plantations. Just like a modern day farmer wouldn't take a baseball bat to his John Deere, plantation owners wouldn't mistreat their cattle, horses, or slaves. If it had been as Stowe portrayed it, why is it that so many freed slaves took the last names of their former masters, and remained on the lands where they had toiled??????????

As a side note, there is not a single incident of a Southern owned slave ship ever transporting slaves from Africa to this country. And the slaves themselves were already slaves in their native lands, sold to English, Dutch, and Yankee traders by their own people. Was it wrong, certainly, but the Bible itself, makes it known that slavery has existed as long as recorded history, and it even occurs today in certain parts of the world.
NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, The Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, QDMA, DU, NWTF, ASAdisabled sportsmens' alliance, EDH, and Proud SC redneck REBEL for life.

xmatax
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:30 am
Location: NW PA

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby xmatax » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:44 am

JPH wrote:xmatax, I'm not calling you a racist. I'm calling efforts to correlate skin color and violence a racist tactic.

Now, when people start tossing out that the war that ended slavery was the "War of Northern Aggression", or make repeated references to certain people as "illegals", red flags go up. And the suggestion that the solution to gun violence is to segregate black inner-city youth?!? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Lets say for a second that your enlightened thought process does in fact lead to the discovery that the melanin in a person's skin makes them prone to gun violence? What then? Segregation? Race panels? Camps? I really don't know what you hope to gain from the suggestion and the idea that it would go unchecked is offensive to me.


Why would they have to be segregated...for research purposes to find a root cause all avenues have to be explored..and in your example if there was a correlation found it would help to hopefully find an end to the violence. I'm not saying one exists I'm merely pointing towards evidence stating there are certain types of relationships as it relates to gun violence. Maybe education is the answer and its sevverely lacking in inner cities and race is a byproduct. Perhaps it has to do with poverty and money infused into areas will build confidence and directly have an impact. Maybe the solution is to give everyone guns and let everyone shoot one another...let the strong survive. Maybe religion plays a part in it or lack thereof. But you cant tell me that there is something awry when inner city stats in areas are way above the norm...exploring all realms of possibility is merely a scientific approach and hopefully all bias removed.

Case and point...I told my health teacher while doing a reseaech paper the muscle structure of a black males legs are differemt than a white males which has been proven to show they have the ability to run faster. I was removed from class and threatened with suspension even though I provided the scientific research to back it up. She told me that was a racist statement because she didnt want to hear it is in the realm of possibility this could be true. Is race a factor...I dobt know...could it be...perhaps...just like money, education level, and upbringing.

xmatax
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:30 am
Location: NW PA

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby xmatax » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:11 am

I guess I don't understamd why there is a possibility, though in my mind highly unlikely, that race could play a factor into the entire scheme of gun violence. I'm not saying it does or doesnt...but at one time we believed the earth was the center of the universe and the world was flat and to believe otherwise was treason and you could be hung for it. Serial killers were believed to be only white males at one point.

I would like to believe race isn't a factor but until it can be disproved it still has to be taken into consideration in my opinion. If it is found tp be a cause...lets find a solution but that will be determined by people much smarter than I.

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby JPH » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:35 am

Woods Walker wrote:Well, if you commit and illegal act and get into the country illegally, then that does make one's presence here "illegal", regardless of race or nationality. I understand what you mean in that their existance as a human being is NOT, and cannot be "illegal" in any way, but their ACTIONS in this regard certainly can be and in fact are.


A couple of years ago my daughter crashed her bicycle and was knocked unconscious. She came to but was confused. I did a quick assessment and elected to scoop her up and head to the ER, rather than waiting for an ambulance. My wife and I broke a whole host of traffic laws in order to protect our child. Excessive speed, failure to come to a full stop, etc. We knew we were breaking the law and we knew there was risk involved but we felt it was the best of some bad options.

Are we "illegal" because we broke some laws? Should we carry that label everywhere we go? How about our daughter who was along for the ride?

By the way Woods Walker, have you taken a good look at the crowd surrounding you in the uncompromising 2A camp? You have people who say slaves were not mistreated and they don't give a damn if innocent people are wiped out by natural disaster, and people who suggest that we conduct racial testing in order to determine if blackness is the cause of gun violence. Yikes!

User avatar
rthomas4
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:07 pm
Location: Hampton, SC

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby rthomas4 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:07 pm

People who enter this country illegally are illegals, Their children are illegal, and their children's children are illegal. That can not be dismissed. It is a fact that to criminally enter the United states is an illegal action, just as it is illegal to enter Mexico or Canada. To dispute illegal entry is to deny law. To encourage it is an act of criminality and should be treated as treasonous. I suppose you prefer to call these criminals "undocumented workers".

Hell, if you don't care that your Constitutional rights are threatened, and if you favor gun bans, then what other Constitutional rights are you willing to surrender? I don't agree with the main stream media, but I certainly defend the First Amendment, do you? Trying to deflect the original intent of the comments I made in the post that set you up as the defender of the poor downtrodden inner city youth and the criminal activities of gangs by making those of us who have differing views than you is an act of a petty individual. Trying to turn the comments into something they are not, is the act of a deceitful individual who resorts to the lowest denominator in a debate. I'm guessing that you voted for Obama, and not because of a political ideology, but because of his race. If I have misjudged you, I apologize; but I fail to see why you are intent on denying the original premise of protection of the Second Amendment, and the fact that no other countries or their residents should interject their way of life and government tenets into American law. You have managed to disrupt the original thread by your actions, Then as others have tried to justify our comments and dissuade you from twisting comments into something they weren't, you have promulgated the same tendencies that the Democratic party and the anti-gun groups use to deflect the conversation into something other than what it is. History is what it is, and whether you personally choose to disbelieve historical facts is irrelevant, just as denying criminal actions is turning a blind eye to many of the underlying social problems this country is facing.

I believe that there have been three separate times where you stated you were going to drop out of the discussion; yet, you continue to come back. WHY?
I believe you realize that the majority of respondents in this thread have opposing views on the Second Amendment than you, and it kills you that we voice a united front in opposition to any proposed restraints against our rights. I actually pity an individual such as yourself, when they have to resort to such tactics in an effort to establish some sort of self-importance. I must say that the warnings I received about you when I first came to this site have proven to be prophetic and true. With that being said, I don't believe there is anything I can add to this conversation; and unlike you, I shall retire from the thread. I'm certain you will glory in your perceived triumph!!!!!
NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, The Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, QDMA, DU, NWTF, ASAdisabled sportsmens' alliance, EDH, and Proud SC redneck REBEL for life.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4956
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby Woods Walker » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:12 pm

JPH wrote:
Woods Walker wrote:Well, if you commit and illegal act and get into the country illegally, then that does make one's presence here "illegal", regardless of race or nationality. I understand what you mean in that their existance as a human being is NOT, and cannot be "illegal" in any way, but their ACTIONS in this regard certainly can be and in fact are.


A couple of years ago my daughter crashed her bicycle and was knocked unconscious. She came to but was confused. I did a quick assessment and elected to scoop her up and head to the ER, rather than waiting for an ambulance. My wife and I broke a whole host of traffic laws in order to protect our child. Excessive speed, failure to come to a full stop, etc. We knew we were breaking the law and we knew there was risk involved but we felt it was the best of some bad options.

Are we "illegal" because we broke some laws? Should we carry that label everywhere we go? How about our daughter who was along for the ride?

By the way Woods Walker, have you taken a good look at the crowd surrounding you in the uncompromising 2A camp? You have people who say slaves were not mistreated and they don't give a damn if innocent people are wiped out by natural disaster, and people who suggest that we conduct racial testing in order to determine if blackness is the cause of gun violence. Yikes!
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
Deebz
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:25 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby Deebz » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:17 pm

sigh... anybody else reading along feel like this has turned into the equivalent of the most boring tennis match in the world where each side simply hits lob after lob back forth endlessly??

There was good discussion of the fact that we have a constitution that provides us with an assurance of a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, and has degraded into namecalling and ridiculous twisting of peoples' statements and their meanings...
"When a hunter is in a tree stand with high moral values and with the proper hunting ethics and richer for the experience, that hunter is 20 feet closer to God." ~Fred Bear

xmatax
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:30 am
Location: NW PA

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby xmatax » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:21 pm

Again JPH...you selectively created your own conclusions and judgements based on exerpts from a statement instead of the statement in its entirety.

Did I say that race was a proven factor in all gun crimes and by removing said people from society it would change gun violence...no. Did I state that in the most troubled areas race, as well as other factors, show an alarmingly high correlation to gun violence, yes. Does this mean that because you are of a certain race, social standing, religion, upbringing you're more prone to violence with a gun and if so can we narrow it down to a single trait..I hope we can but it's doubtful.

Gun violence may be or it may not be related to any or all of the above and it has yet to be proven otherwise and until it is proven otherwise there is weight to the theory that it could be caused by race, social stature, religioin, creed, upbringing, etc. So until an answer is found, a thorough and unbiased investigation would take ALL things into account no matter how "stupid" they may sound.

I would rather our government find PROOF to their claims before taking away, restricting, changing, etc. my 2a rights (or any of my rights for that matter) then just, as the general public has said, go ahead and do it because it "sounds right" or it has to work and if it doesn't work we'll take more away.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4956
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby Woods Walker » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:29 pm

JPH wrote:
Woods Walker wrote:Well, if you commit and illegal act and get into the country illegally, then that does make one's presence here "illegal", regardless of race or nationality. I understand what you mean in that their existance as a human being is NOT, and cannot be "illegal" in any way, but their ACTIONS in this regard certainly can be and in fact are.


A couple of years ago my daughter crashed her bicycle and was knocked unconscious. She came to but was confused. I did a quick assessment and elected to scoop her up and head to the ER, rather than waiting for an ambulance. My wife and I broke a whole host of traffic laws in order to protect our child. Excessive speed, failure to come to a full stop, etc. We knew we were breaking the law and we knew there was risk involved but we felt it was the best of some bad options.

Are we "illegal" because we broke some laws? Should we carry that label everywhere we go? How about our daughter who was along for the ride?

By the way Woods Walker, have you taken a good look at the crowd surrounding you in the uncompromising 2A camp? You have people who say slaves were not mistreated and they don't give a damn if innocent people are wiped out by natural disaster, and people who suggest that we conduct racial testing in order to determine if blackness is the cause of gun violence. Yikes!


Well, a couple of things. To give a 100% accurate answer to your first question.....NO, you and your family were NOT "illegals". But whomever was driving DID commit an illegal act(s). To argue whether it was justified or not or whether it should be punishable or not in that particular circumstance is irrelevant to this conversation.

And just because I don't necessarily agree with everything they say that STILL doesn't negate their stance on the 2A issue, of which I agree wholeheartedly.

I thought Ron Paul had some VERY sound and sensible ideas about a lot of things and then for others I thought he was an enchilada or two shy of a combo plate. But that still doesn't make his other ideas unsound.

I agree with you on most things as you well know J'per, and then on others...well...we must agree to disagree.

In my opinion, someone who IS a bonafide, admitted racist is not all that different from a self described "non-racist" person (which in fact with the exception of Christ is really impossible...we ALL have prejudices of one sort another) who in the next breath would take from me an inalienable Constitutional birthright, or "civil right". All men being created by God as equals and the natural right of me being able to defend myself and my loved ones with ARMS are IMO one in the same. To deny one is to deny the other. The best we can do is to engage in the excahge of ideas and to question not only them but ourselves. Hopefully we'll learn on both sides.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
Ohio farms
 
Posts: 1929
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:13 am
Location: Mentor, Ohio

Re: Durbin's Reply

Postby Ohio farms » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:51 pm

[quote="Deebz"]sigh... anybody else reading along feel like this has turned into the equivalent of the most boring tennis match in the world where each side simply hits lob after lob back forth endlessly??

Oh Yes!
Keep life simple...if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests