What do you mean by that?

Are you calling him an Uncle Tom, as in a race traiter?

Or that he's a paid shill who whored himself out to the highest bidder?

Or that you know better than he does, and should tell him how to act and how to think?

Or are you callimg him a Tom cat like in Tom and Jerry?

all of the above

He is wrong.

You are wrong.

Neither white supremacists nor black people nor regular white people should have guns.

You’ve fallen for the propaganda that the solution to gun violence is more guns.

Aka GUN MEME

Black people make up 12.4% of the us population, but accounted for 41.8% of weapons violations in 2019.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-20 19/tables/table-43

Why would more new gun laws be different in terms of who actually feels the effects?

One could come to the conclusion that gun control is racist, but in reality that just means the very institution of gun ownership is racist. The right wants guns in the hands of pissed off rednecks, but not black people. Our very gun culture is racist in the way that white hicks can open carry, but black people will be shot because their phone looks like a gun.

There's only 2 benefits to gun rights.

Fueling the irrational fears & fantasies of deluded and insecure needledicks.

Establishing a violent fascist paramilitary militia to kill and intimidate opposition when they can't get their fascist way at the polls.


The former is the obvious reason for the base. The latter is the insidious reason for the leadership that I hope more voters realize by midterms.

All criminal laws fall disproportionately on poor people and brown people. Gun laws intended to disarm the white racist shitkickers probably won't do that, but they probably will be used to further criminalize marginalized populations.

This isn't necessarily an insoluble problem, but you do have to acknowledge that it's a problem and try to craft laws that deal with it. I haven't really seen too much of this.

The moment guns are outlawed, I’m making me a spear and conquering all you short, knife wielding peasants.

People on the left also use guns to defend their communities from fascist violence. "Moderate" right-wingers like Democrats don't like to acknowledge this fact, but it is very real.

Gun control just concentrates weapons in the hands of the police and their fascist militia allies. This is a very bad plan.

lol ashtar doing the 'racist fbi statistics' defense with a straight face

Just about every "gun control" law on the books is really just an economic barrier to gun ownership.

The guns themselves are expensive. Then they add mandatory safety & training courses on top of that. Then the license itself costs money.

And on Instagram, people are posting photos of themselves surrounded by their massive gun collections laid out in their living rooms or driveways. The people are always White and their homes are always big suburban houses.

These people don't feel we need gun control because they think keeping guns out of the hands of poor people is good enough. And when you say "poor people" in front of them, you can bet they immediately think of Black and Hispanic people.

True, there are a lot of poor White people and many rich White people think of them as a threat, too. But they know the majority of poor White people can't afford to lay out upwards of $1,000 for an AR-15 style weapon. Sure, a few might get their hands on them, but they mostly use them against working-class people, not the rich.

The White people with huge personal arsenals will never feel at risk with things the way they are. They won't understand the point of background checks, mental health screenings, red flag laws and limiting magazine capacity as long as they're not worried for themselves. They feel safe behind a wall of militarized cops and their own stacks of guns.

That's why we need to push a bill that will give every American citizen a free AR-15. It also needs to pay for all safety & training courses, time on the shooting range and a monthly bullet allowance.

These people will not care about passing common-sense gun control laws until they feel the same level of threat as everyone else.

I don't think more guns will solve the problem. I think the fear of more guns in certain hands will at least lead to better gun control.

Another idiot that thinks the solution to gun violence is more guns.


The solution to your dumb redneck neighbors being a threat is for them to not have guns. Not your deluded Rambo fantasy.

I don't necessarily disagree! the problem with this idea is that you do not have the option to get rid of all the guns. There are far too many of them, and the legislative hurdles are far too huge, a significant percentage of gun owners would refuse to comply, a significant number of law enforcement agencies would refuse to enforce, and even worse a significant number of law enforcement agencies would enforce this exclusively against people of color.

We are closer to building an equitable and just society with a quality of life so high that it naturally drives down violent crime to northern Europe levels than we are to passing and enforcing a full-on gun ban, or even a ban of just assault rifles.

“The problem is hard to fix so let’s not fix it but instead actively exacerbate it”

It's weird that we ought to be moderate and realistic and compromise and not be naieve bernie bro idealists on things like healthcare and climate change, but being realistic about the actual chances of passing gun control or the likely effects of, say, "assault weapons" bans is not included in the call towards realism, incrementalism, and compromise.

Surely the fascists will listen to our rEaSoNaBlE dEbAtE

Yeah you idiots fueling the gun violence in America is so helpful.

Personally my crazy idea is that if there was some chance of politics affecting aspects of our lives beyond dumb culture war shit, some chance of material good coming from political engagement, you probably wouldn't have this substantial faction of voters whose politics are entirely 'leave my hobby alone'.

When there is nothing at all to rally around, no goals, no agenda, no effort put into anything but making excuses, no real change in your life regardless of what political party is in power, people will find dumb shit to get political about.

Ok I'm not American. I've lived in a few different countries where guns are heavily to moderately regulated.

So, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "Nonwhite people, especially in the south, have to be armed. It's irresponsible not to be."

What is the scenario they live in that requires guns?

I’ll pretend these idiots are genuine and not right-wing idiots.

The gist is;

American right; “I need guns to protect myself from the dangerous minorities who are out to get me”

American minorities; “I need guns to protect myself from the dangerous whites who are out to get me”

Both; “Obviously guns need to be easy to get so I can have as many as I want because the people who are out to get me already have more guns than me”


It’s collective paranoia and stupidity.

Yeah I have a hard time believing the actual mechanics/logistics of how a gun would protect you from an armed assailant. Do people think that armed assailants come at you from a distance brandishing their weapons like in Call of Duty or some shit?

Most armed assaults suddenly you have a gun in your face out of nowhere.

What good is your gun then?

What I mean by saying that nonwhite people in the south need to be armed is that there is a long history of extrajudicial violence against Black people in the south, upheld by both political parties, over the most minor of perceived offenses.

The example I gave in my original post was that here in Florida, whenever a hurricane is forecast, a shocking number of businesses and homeowners will display homemade signs on their property that state that they will shoot anyone that (they say) is looting. What this means in reality is that they will shoot any nonwhite people in their neighborhood as soon as the storm gets bad enough to suspend emergency services. In Florida this would be perfectly legal as long as the shooter tells the police that they felt afraid of the nonwhite person.

I'm simply pointing out that the racists are armed, regularly use their weapons against nonwhite people, and are protected by law in doing so. Under these circumstances imho it's crazy to put yourself at their mercy.

also, to the point "Most armed assaults suddenly you have a gun in your face out of nowhere. What good is your gun then?" I would direct you to the example of Ahmaud Arbery, a man that likely would still be alive had he been carrying a handgun.

These idiots also like to cite edge cases to justify heavily arming millions of increasingly paranoid and violent Americans.

nothing paranoid about a Black man in the south wanting to have the option to defend himself

Historically that is exactly who it is.

i looked it up and, yep, i was wrong as hell

It’s just the republicans strategy to recruit minorities.

Instead of passing laws that help minorities they just yell “DEMOCRATS ARE THE REAL RACISTS”.

No different with how they recruit poor whites, really…just scare tactics to fool them into voting for the party that only cares about the rich.

REPUBLICANS FREED THE SLAVES!!!

nobody passes "laws that help minorities" Sol, that's kinda my whole point. All those fuckers are racist, the two parties are just playing good cop/bad cop

But you’re a fucking moron.

hey just make sure that your billing information on ActBlue is current, it would be a shame to miss the poem that Nancy Pelosi promised to read when Democrats finally hit their fundraising goal this month

Sputum, you need to realize that after Johnson signed the Civil Righrs Act the dixiecrats started flipping over to the GOP. Do you really think Klansmen were voting for Hillary and Obama? They're the same people, they just changed party affiliation when the GOP started pandering to their racist asses.

lol imagine being so fucking stupid you think that pointing out the SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE DIXIECRATS being technically democrats has anything at all to do with the modern democratic constituency or party whatsoever.

modern democrats are the political antecedents of the northern liberal abolitionists

ten bucks says blocked posts are cs pretending not to know this fact

Show me policy or legislation that elected Democrats have passed in the last 40 years that differentiates them from the Democrats that came before that. Especially in context with the fact that Democratic leadership is entirely in the 70s and 80s too.

Well, like the current republican party, it's more about what they opposed, rather than what they passed...

1948. Alabama. The 'States' Rights Democratic Party,' (renamed themselves the Dixiecrats,) opposed the civil rights program introduced by Truman as part of his Democratic platform. In particular they opposed the anti-discrimination/segregation laws, making lynching a federal crime and the anti-poll tax legislation.

Instead of starting a new party, they decided to form a concentrated party within the Democratic party (like the Freedumb Caucus) to pull the levers of power they already had in place to deadlock the federal election until the civil rights plank was dropped.
But Truman won, and the dixiecrats party died in name. But those voters continued to oppose the Democratic party on civil rights basis for the next decades.

1964. Civil Rights Act was passed after being introduced by Democratic President JFK. Southern Democrats opposed it. But it was passed, and expanded in 1970, 75, 82 and 92. All with Democratic majorities.

The names change. But it's always been the north vs the south on civil rights. Of course you probably know this. But you're probably cherry picking things to make your world view sit just right.

Thank you for making my point better than I could.

Let me break out the crayons for you

Democrats before 1950 = No civil rights for black folks
Democrats after 1950 = civil rights for black folks

And a bunch of amendments in the date range you specified to cherry pick

Democrats before 1950: Let's lynch all the Black folks!

Democrats after 1950: Let's make it slightly easier for Black folks to vote for us in the 1960s! And then we'll arm the cops with military gear and let THEM lynch all the Black folks for us!

You’re showing your republican shill again.

Why are people still replying to a zero effort talking point copy paste negative attention cunt?

yeah I'm the Republican but you all are the people that voted to elect a guy that spent 40 years in the senate trying to ban abortion and are now surprised that abortion is banned and he won't do anything about it lol

I think it was the constitutional traitors picks for the supreme court that did that, actually.

you mean the supreme court that could be drastically reformed at any point by whatever political party held full control of the federal government?

Yes, that court which has fairly nominated judges...

Unless the nomination is held back by a republican when its a democratic president because 'its an election year' but rushed when a republican president nominates a judge WHILE FEDERAL VOTES ARE BEING COUNTED and its clear he's loosing.

Or when they have to pause the confirmation hearing so the FBI can investigate sexual assault allegations, but only disclose the results of the 2 day investigation to the republican white house only...

Or when the republican nominee lies under oath about 'settled law' and secure their appointment with that lie.

Pretty fair otherwise.

Perhaps you're suggesting that the number of judges court be increased dramatically in the next four months? Or Some judges be impeached for blatant ethics violations?

All the roadblocks you describe are results of the senate rules, which could also be changed at any point with 50+1 votes.

These are bullshit handshake deals; they aren't in the constitution, they aren't actual laws, exactly like most of the policy that defines the makeup of the modern supreme court! The uncomfortable reality that Democrats have to face is that the scotus you have right now is the result of policy choices made by the people you elected, full stop .

There are no rules about blocking a nominee in an election year, republicans made that up, and then threw it out the window when it was to their advantage. The actual term for it is Ratfuck, its on wikipedia - look it up. As you can imagine, a term like that indicates that its a tOTalLy fAiR tactic.

And you need a majority senate vote to change laws that affect/overrule the supreme court. Though the republicans changed the confirmation procedure to only require 51 votes in 2017. Thats what has allowed this ratfuckery in the first place.

It should be fascinating for you to read about Jerry Falwell and The Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation and the other republican initiatives that worked to overturn 50 years of established law by rat fucking the senate.

If reading is a challenge for you, John Oliver did a piece on this back in Sep of 2020

Republican mouthpieces love to point out that "Democrats did it first!" regarding changing confirmation to 51 senate votes.

This was done for regular federal judges, after Republicans refused to confirm ANY open federal seats while a Democrat was in the White House.

Yet another case of the ratfuck party intentionally breaking government, then blaming the measures the adults in the room had to make to fix it.

siiiick

best comment