Michael Brown was killed because of racism encouraged by the pro gun lobby

  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Aug 17, 2014 10:10 PM GMT
    In the wake of the incident in Ferguson concerning Michael Brown, a young unarmed black male shot by a police officer, a lot of people have been declaring this as the stop gap to police brutality. Others have been saying this is another hallmark of racism ingrained in our criminal justice system. Then there are those who are saying that this was nothing more than unfortunate incident. I agree with all three schools of thought. But I think that this is something more than each separate viewpoint I honestly think it's all three. I think racism plays a part in it. I think it plays the biggest part. I'm not one of those people who will say that it's not a race issue it's a class issue because white people only say that when they want to deflect from the uncomfortable topic of race relations. But here's my particular take away from this incident: Michael Brown's death has only served to highlight the inherent racism in the extreme pro-gun movement and this movement has radically re shaped the modern police as we know it.

    First off let's dissect the common utterances of the pro-gun lobby:

    -Guns don't kill people, people kill people: Obviously this is a trite platitude filled with more emotionally charged sentiment than a back to back marathon of Oprah. This is pretty much the 'Honk if You Love Jesus' of pro gun arguments. It is not worth further debate.

    -Most responsible gun owners do not commit crimes: In theory yes but who exactly is a responsible gun owner? When we think of such person we all collectively imagine someone who keeps their weapon in an area safe away from others when not being carried, always on safety and only used in emergencies. However with the open carry movement and their liked minded brethren the term responsible gun owner is being less about making sure you don't shot anyone and moreso shooting the right person. We'll get back to that one in a minute.

    -More guns leads to less crime: Again in theory yes but one needs to look no further than cities such as Chicago and Detroit to see how the abundance of guns has led to more crime. Now you could argue 'well those people got their guns illegally' and you'd be right if the statement we were arguing against we were 'More legally acquired guns leads to less crime'. But we aren't. We are challenging the notion that more guns point blank period will result in reduced crime rates. Well this is not The Purge so it doesn't work that way. Now you may be also asking 'Isn't it a mistake to bring up cities like Chicago and Detroit when talking about racially motivated attacks by whites to blacks?' and the answer is no. Why? Because bringing up black on black crime in a discussion about very different topic with very different mechanics at work is a deflection.

    -The lack of mental health awareness has more to do with recent spurs of gun violence than guns themselves do: To quote President Obama in a rather recent review about gun violence in this country 'We are not the only country with neuroses'. What he means by this is that Americas mental health issues do not exist in vacuum. We are not the one special snowflake when it comes to mental dilapidations. I'm not going to discount that mental health issues play a part in this but I'm not going to be bold enough to say EVERY perpetrator of a gun related incident has a mental illness. Again this is a deflection. What we are ignoring is that human beings are animals. And at the end of the day an animal when enraged will attack and it's only nature that they attack with whatever tools they have at their disposal be they inborn or external. Instead of saying we have a mental health issue we should instead be focusing on the very real problems with our society and the culture of rage and self-absorption that is exacerbated through the over abundance of access to guns.

    And my favorite,

    -Guns are meant to be for self defense and that's why more people should have them: And now we get to the meat of my argument. To defend yourself from whom? To protect yourself from what? I ask the gun rights movement to provide me with what exactly they assume is going to happen to the average (white) person if they do not have a gun. Let me first point out that the faces of the gun rights movement are predominantly white and that is more important than you think. Because to me whenever I hear a white person rambling about protecting ones community from dangerous and violent individuals I cannot help but wonder who he is coloring as the innocent and who he is coloring as the violent. This kind of rhetoric plays to the crowds who genuinely believe that black people, black men in particular, are inherently and naturally violent creatures.

    How often do you see the NRA speaking to crowds of all black faces? Or heck when is the last time you saw a person of color who was fervently pro gun rights? I'm not discounting they exist but I'm saying they are a rarity and there's a carefully articulated reason for that. You won't be seeing the NRA speaking to crowds of black men that they need guns to protect themselves and their families because in the eyes of the extremist pro gun pusher every black man is the threat and his sons are the seeds of violence. For instance let's take the open carry movement which supports the right to sport (often incredibly large and threatening showpieces of ones store bought masculinity) into any public place. Now anyone with a brain sees these people as dangerous but to them they are just expressing their rights to defend themselves, their families and their communities. I'd say from what but we already know at this point. But I ask you this: if it were three or four black men marching into a Chiptole's pulling the same brand of lunacy how do you think that would have played out? If you're imagining a bloodbath you're probably right. Those of you blissfully unaware of the complicated workings of race relations are probably asking yourselves why and I'll tell you. In the eyes of these pro gun extremists and often times the police black men do not have the right to protect themselves. We do not have the right to protect our children or communities because all of these things collectively are viewed as worth protecting.

    As a child I was always told that white people viewed almost as being supernatural. Five or six white police officers are required to take down one black man. Almost an entire squadron is needed when a black man is being pulled over. This stems back to the reconstruction era when post-slavery in order to keep blacks disenfranchised their personhood had to be out into question. It was essentially a rebranding of the 3/4's of a man argument. Black men were painted as inexplicably aggressive and animalistic and black women were painted as being ill tempered and overtly sexualized. This served to further degrade us as human beings and would led to successful efforts to put in place laws to keep blacks separated from whites as much as possible. You may not think this ideology is still given any practice today but the next time you hear about a young black man being shot seven or six times ask yourself how many bullets do the police think it takes to kill a black man? In fact I implore you to ask a cop that the next time you see one. Ask him how many bullets are needed to make sure a black male is no longer a threat? I'm legitimately interested in their responses. In situations like Michael Brown's death one cannot help but think about the way in which the young man. He was unarmed. He was pleading for his life. But to that's only to us who are not taught to view black men as the enemy. To the police officer his ammo was his very being and he was making a plea for nothing at all.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 12:15 AM GMT
    silver_phoenix saidI don't understand why you get so worked up about the occasional police shooting of black suspects/crims, when in cities like Chicago blacks are slaughtering each other daily.

    You just joined RJ today with a fake profile, already knowing how to correctly post images here. And making racist comments about Blacks and our US President.

    Now the game begins to uncover whose sock you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 12:19 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidsilver_phoenix brings up a good point.

    Suggesting that YOU are Silver Phoenix. Well, that's a good candidate for vile racism. Any other names we can think of?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 12:30 AM GMT
    silver_phoenix said
    Art_Deco said
    You just joined RJ today with a fake profile, already knowing how to correctly post images here.


    Sure geriatrics like you would struggle with posting cat pics on the Interwebs. Seriously it takes about 30 seconds to figure that shit out, and if you've done it on one forum, you've done it on a 1000.

    Honey, there is food in your fridge older than the kids who can code apps these days. icon_wink.gif


    Aha, kiwilifter is back after a good banning. I take it you're asking for another one?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Aug 18, 2014 12:31 AM GMT
    silver_phoenix saidI don't understand why you get so worked up about the occasional police shooting of black suspects/crims, when in cities like Chicago blacks are slaughtering each other daily.

    guncontrolchicago.jpg

    If I had trouble with these "sons of Obama" I would shoot first and ask questions later:

    ballout-chief-keef.jpeg

    chiefkeef_yzfcz.jpg
    Chicago has technically become two separate cities- The first one is the city of downtown, the lakefront, and the north side where prosperity, growth, and the American dream can be found. The second one is the city of the near west side and the south side where crushing poverty, despair, and the violence can be found.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 1:32 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    silver_phoenix said
    Art_Deco said
    You just joined RJ today with a fake profile, already knowing how to correctly post images here.

    Sure geriatrics like you would struggle with posting cat pics on the Interwebs. Seriously it takes about 30 seconds to figure that shit out, and if you've done it on one forum, you've done it on a 1000.

    Honey, there is food in your fridge older than the kids who can code apps these days. icon_wink.gif

    Aha, kiwilifter is back after a good banning. I take it you're asking for another one?

    Ah, is that the sock? You guys always seem to know. I was kinda leaning to one of the many southbeach socks, but you tend to get it right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 3:31 AM GMT
    Inque saidIn the wake of the incident in Ferguson concerning Michael Brown, a young unarmed black male shot by a police officer, a lot of people have been declaring this as the stop gap to police brutality. Others have been saying this is another hallmark of racism ingrained in our criminal justice system. Then there are those who are saying that this was nothing more than unfortunate incident. I agree with all three schools of thought. But I think that this is something more than each separate viewpoint I honestly think it's all three. I think racism plays a part in it. I think it plays the biggest part. I'm not one of those people who will say that it's not a race issue it's a class issue because white people only say that when they want to deflect from the uncomfortable topic of race relations. But here's my particular take away from this incident: Michael Brown's death has only served to highlight the inherent racism in the extreme pro-gun movement and this movement has radically re shaped the modern police as we know it.

    First off let's dissect the common utterances of the pro-gun lobby:

    -Guns don't kill people, people kill people: Obviously this is a trite platitude filled with more emotionally charged sentiment than a back to back marathon of Oprah. This is pretty much the 'Honk if You Love Jesus' of pro gun arguments. It is not worth further debate.

    -Most responsible gun owners do not commit crimes: In theory yes but who exactly is a responsible gun owner? When we think of such person we all collectively imagine someone who keeps their weapon in an area safe away from others when not being carried, always on safety and only used in emergencies. However with the open carry movement and their liked minded brethren the term responsible gun owner is being less about making sure you don't shot anyone and moreso shooting the right person. We'll get back to that one in a minute.

    -More guns leads to less crime: Again in theory yes but one needs to look no further than cities such as Chicago and Detroit to see how the abundance of guns has led to more crime. Now you could argue 'well those people got their guns illegally' and you'd be right if the statement we were arguing against we were 'More legally acquired guns leads to less crime'. But we aren't. We are challenging the notion that more guns point blank period will result in reduced crime rates. Well this is not The Purge so it doesn't work that way. Now you may be also asking 'Isn't it a mistake to bring up cities like Chicago and Detroit when talking about racially motivated attacks by whites to blacks?' and the answer is no. Why? Because bringing up black on black crime in a discussion about very different topic with very different mechanics at work is a deflection.

    -The lack of mental health awareness has more to do with recent spurs of gun violence than guns themselves do: To quote President Obama in a rather recent review about gun violence in this country 'We are not the only country with neuroses'. What he means by this is that Americas mental health issues do not exist in vacuum. We are not the one special snowflake when it comes to mental dilapidations. I'm not going to discount that mental health issues play a part in this but I'm not going to be bold enough to say EVERY perpetrator of a gun related incident has a mental illness. Again this is a deflection. What we are ignoring is that human beings are animals. And at the end of the day an animal when enraged will attack and it's only nature that they attack with whatever tools they have at their disposal be they inborn or external. Instead of saying we have a mental health issue we should instead be focusing on the very real problems with our society and the culture of rage and self-absorption that is exacerbated through the over abundance of access to guns.

    And my favorite,

    -Guns are meant to be for self defense and that's why more people should have them: And now we get to the meat of my argument. To defend yourself from whom? To protect yourself from what? I ask the gun rights movement to provide me with what exactly they assume is going to happen to the average (white) person if they do not have a gun. Let me first point out that the faces of the gun rights movement are predominantly white and that is more important than you think. Because to me whenever I hear a white person rambling about protecting ones community from dangerous and violent individuals I cannot help but wonder who he is coloring as the innocent and who he is coloring as the violent. This kind of rhetoric plays to the crowds who genuinely believe that black people, black men in particular, are inherently and naturally violent creatures.

    How often do you see the NRA speaking to crowds of all black faces? Or heck when is the last time you saw a person of color who was fervently pro gun rights? I'm not discounting they exist but I'm saying they are a rarity and there's a carefully articulated reason for that. You won't be seeing the NRA speaking to crowds of black men that they need guns to protect themselves and their families because in the eyes of the extremist pro gun pusher every black man is the threat and his sons are the seeds of violence. For instance let's take the open carry movement which supports the right to sport (often incredibly large and threatening showpieces of ones store bought masculinity) into any public place. Now anyone with a brain sees these people as dangerous but to them they are just expressing their rights to defend themselves, their families and their communities. I'd say from what but we already know at this point. But I ask you this: if it were three or four black men marching into a Chiptole's pulling the same brand of lunacy how do you think that would have played out? If you're imagining a bloodbath you're probably right. Those of you blissfully unaware of the complicated workings of race relations are probably asking yourselves why and I'll tell you. In the eyes of these pro gun extremists and often times the police black men do not have the right to protect themselves. We do not have the right to protect our children or communities because all of these things collectively are viewed as worth protecting.

    As a child I was always told that white people viewed almost as being supernatural. Five or six white police officers are required to take down one black man. Almost an entire squadron is needed when a black man is being pulled over. This stems back to the reconstruction era when post-slavery in order to keep blacks disenfranchised their personhood had to be out into question. It was essentially a rebranding of the 3/4's of a man argument. Black men were painted as inexplicably aggressive and animalistic and black women were painted as being ill tempered and overtly sexualized. This served to further degrade us as human beings and would led to successful efforts to put in place laws to keep blacks separated from whites as much as possible. You may not think this ideology is still given any practice today but the next time you hear about a young black man being shot seven or six times ask yourself how many bullets do the police think it takes to kill a black man? In fact I implore you to ask a cop that the next time you see one. Ask him how many bullets are needed to make sure a black male is no longer a threat? I'm legitimately interested in their responses. In situations like Michael Brown's death one cannot help but think about the way in which the young man. He was unarmed. He was pleading for his life. But to that's only to us who are not taught to view black men as the enemy. To the police officer his ammo was his very being and he was making a plea for nothing at all.

    OMG. Where did you copy/paste this from? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 3:35 PM GMT
    silver_phoenix saidPerhaps these vibrant youths are staging a performance art piece about Marxist dialectics of class and capitalism.

    Rioting.jpg?resize=660%2C440


    This seems to be suggesting that the behaviour of a few in the wake of this tragedy (which I think it's hard to deny was racially motivated) outweighs the courage shown by many others. Is that what you're going for?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2014 3:37 PM GMT
    LOL This thread
  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Sep 05, 2014 9:41 PM GMT
    xrichx said
    Inque saidIn the wake of the incident in Ferguson concerning Michael Brown, a young unarmed black male shot by a police officer, a lot of people have been declaring this as the stop gap to police brutality. Others have been saying this is another hallmark of racism ingrained in our criminal justice system. Then there are those who are saying that this was nothing more than unfortunate incident. I agree with all three schools of thought. But I think that this is something more than each separate viewpoint I honestly think it's all three. I think racism plays a part in it. I think it plays the biggest part. I'm not one of those people who will say that it's not a race issue it's a class issue because white people only say that when they want to deflect from the uncomfortable topic of race relations. But here's my particular take away from this incident: Michael Brown's death has only served to highlight the inherent racism in the extreme pro-gun movement and this movement has radically re shaped the modern police as we know it.

    First off let's dissect the common utterances of the pro-gun lobby:

    -Guns don't kill people, people kill people: Obviously this is a trite platitude filled with more emotionally charged sentiment than a back to back marathon of Oprah. This is pretty much the 'Honk if You Love Jesus' of pro gun arguments. It is not worth further debate.

    -Most responsible gun owners do not commit crimes: In theory yes but who exactly is a responsible gun owner? When we think of such person we all collectively imagine someone who keeps their weapon in an area safe away from others when not being carried, always on safety and only used in emergencies. However with the open carry movement and their liked minded brethren the term responsible gun owner is being less about making sure you don't shot anyone and moreso shooting the right person. We'll get back to that one in a minute.

    -More guns leads to less crime: Again in theory yes but one needs to look no further than cities such as Chicago and Detroit to see how the abundance of guns has led to more crime. Now you could argue 'well those people got their guns illegally' and you'd be right if the statement we were arguing against we were 'More legally acquired guns leads to less crime'. But we aren't. We are challenging the notion that more guns point blank period will result in reduced crime rates. Well this is not The Purge so it doesn't work that way. Now you may be also asking 'Isn't it a mistake to bring up cities like Chicago and Detroit when talking about racially motivated attacks by whites to blacks?' and the answer is no. Why? Because bringing up black on black crime in a discussion about very different topic with very different mechanics at work is a deflection.

    -The lack of mental health awareness has more to do with recent spurs of gun violence than guns themselves do: To quote President Obama in a rather recent review about gun violence in this country 'We are not the only country with neuroses'. What he means by this is that Americas mental health issues do not exist in vacuum. We are not the one special snowflake when it comes to mental dilapidations. I'm not going to discount that mental health issues play a part in this but I'm not going to be bold enough to say EVERY perpetrator of a gun related incident has a mental illness. Again this is a deflection. What we are ignoring is that human beings are animals. And at the end of the day an animal when enraged will attack and it's only nature that they attack with whatever tools they have at their disposal be they inborn or external. Instead of saying we have a mental health issue we should instead be focusing on the very real problems with our society and the culture of rage and self-absorption that is exacerbated through the over abundance of access to guns.

    And my favorite,

    -Guns are meant to be for self defense and that's why more people should have them: And now we get to the meat of my argument. To defend yourself from whom? To protect yourself from what? I ask the gun rights movement to provide me with what exactly they assume is going to happen to the average (white) person if they do not have a gun. Let me first point out that the faces of the gun rights movement are predominantly white and that is more important than you think. Because to me whenever I hear a white person rambling about protecting ones community from dangerous and violent individuals I cannot help but wonder who he is coloring as the innocent and who he is coloring as the violent. This kind of rhetoric plays to the crowds who genuinely believe that black people, black men in particular, are inherently and naturally violent creatures.

    How often do you see the NRA speaking to crowds of all black faces? Or heck when is the last time you saw a person of color who was fervently pro gun rights? I'm not discounting they exist but I'm saying they are a rarity and there's a carefully articulated reason for that. You won't be seeing the NRA speaking to crowds of black men that they need guns to protect themselves and their families because in the eyes of the extremist pro gun pusher every black man is the threat and his sons are the seeds of violence. For instance let's take the open carry movement which supports the right to sport (often incredibly large and threatening showpieces of ones store bought masculinity) into any public place. Now anyone with a brain sees these people as dangerous but to them they are just expressing their rights to defend themselves, their families and their communities. I'd say from what but we already know at this point. But I ask you this: if it were three or four black men marching into a Chiptole's pulling the same brand of lunacy how do you think that would have played out? If you're imagining a bloodbath you're probably right. Those of you blissfully unaware of the complicated workings of race relations are probably asking yourselves why and I'll tell you. In the eyes of these pro gun extremists and often times the police black men do not have the right to protect themselves. We do not have the right to protect our children or communities because all of these things collectively are viewed as worth protecting.

    As a child I was always told that white people viewed almost as being supernatural. Five or six white police officers are required to take down one black man. Almost an entire squadron is needed when a black man is being pulled over. This stems back to the reconstruction era when post-slavery in order to keep blacks disenfranchised their personhood had to be out into question. It was essentially a rebranding of the 3/4's of a man argument. Black men were painted as inexplicably aggressive and animalistic and black women were painted as being ill tempered and overtly sexualized. This served to further degrade us as human beings and would led to successful efforts to put in place laws to keep blacks separated from whites as much as possible. You may not think this ideology is still given any practice today but the next time you hear about a young black man being shot seven or six times ask yourself how many bullets do the police think it takes to kill a black man? In fact I implore you to ask a cop that the next time you see one. Ask him how many bullets are needed to make sure a black male is no longer a threat? I'm legitimately interested in their responses. In situations like Michael Brown's death one cannot help but think about the way in which the young man. He was unarmed. He was pleading for his life. But to that's only to us who are not taught to view black men as the enemy. To the police officer his ammo was his very being and he was making a plea for nothing at all.

    OMG. Where did you copy/paste this from? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I wrote it.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 06, 2014 3:20 AM GMT
    I think that most cops have come to suspect that all black men are armed and dangerous, and the cops act accordingly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2014 3:42 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidI think that most cops have come to suspect that all black men are armed and dangerous, and the cops act accordingly.

    Cops in the US are way out of control. It's like we're under martial law.

    They shoot you down, or maybe you just get beaten to a pulp, White or Black (but most often Black) and then they walk.

    We watch action movies where the fictional "Double-O Seven" has a license to kill. But it in the US it's every cop on the block who has a license to kill. And our courts confirm it.

    And now ordinary citizens can carry weapons everywhere in many States and can shoot you if they claim you were somehow perceived as a threat to them. The Wild West has returned to the USA.

    Therefore I warn potential visitors to the US from foreign countries, to avoid certain of our US States. You are fair game, if you make a suspicious move. You don't have to be actually armed, our courts have said it's enough if your killer THINKS you MAY be armed. It may be safer if you just stay away from our lawless Wild West shores.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2014 1:02 PM GMT
    I love how uninformed most of you are on this topic more than likely just following the mainstream race baiting media.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2014 1:04 PM GMT
    In case some of you forgot this country wouldn't be a country if it weren't for guns lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2014 1:06 PM GMT
    Oh wait I forgot we must have chased off the English by blowing pixie dust at them lmao
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2014 3:04 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Webster666 saidI think that most cops have come to suspect that all black men are armed and dangerous, and the cops act accordingly.

    Cops in the US are way out of control. It's like we're under martial law.

    They shoot you down, or maybe you just get beaten to a pulp, White or Black (but most often Black) and then they walk.

    We watch action movies where the fictional "Double-O Seven" has a license to kill. But it in the US it's every cop on the block who has a license to kill. And our courts confirm it.

    And now ordinary citizens can carry weapons everywhere in many States and can shoot you if they claim you were somehow perceived as a threat to them. The Wild West has returned to the USA.

    Therefore I warn potential visitors to the US from foreign countries, to avoid certain of our US States. You are fair game, if you make a suspicious move. You don't have to be actually armed, our courts have said it's enough if your killer THINKS you MAY be armed. It may be safer if you just stay away from our lawless Wild West shores.


    It's interesting that "the cops are out of control" when they are local cops in a urban neighborhood.

    The right wing stated much the same about the Bureau of Land Management during the Clive Bundy standoff at Mesquite, Nevada. The BLM eventually stood down.

    I have mixed feelings about it -- I can see the need for the military type weaponry on rare occasions, but having it leads to the temptation to use it, often times in situations where it's inappropriate.