If you have to ask permission or justify your reason to exercise a right then you are being oppressed.

For me it's the knowledge that the government won't become a total police state as long as I have them.

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted! It's called The Bill of Rights. It's not called the Bill of Needs!

I carry a gun because it's too heavy to carry a police officer

LOL!!! Thanks for that, I needed it.

I think the only thing we need is common sense. Too few people have it!

Exactly

Good meme. I agree. Remember that little old thing called the War for Independence? (Or Revolutionary War or whatever you want to call it.) The soldiers were kinda just ordinary people with guns.

They were. The founding fathers didn't want a standing army. They thought that the people would volunteer on their own to defend their liberty.

Just imagine their (founding fathers') reactions if they saw America today. X(

They would be very disappointed and sad. They also would not even recognize the government they established. They would take one look and wonder why they even bothered declaring independence from England.

https://i.imgflip.com/51q258.jpg

The right has an asymptotic relationship with the point.

Rosa Parks "needed" to sit in the front of the bus, because she was "famous" enough, and no one cared when Claudette Colvin did it.

good talk https://i.imgflip.com/51lbax.jpg

So you're trying to compare the recreational use of a violent weapon built to kill people with a black woman exercising her right to sit in the front of the bus with everyone else? Sounds about white.

Yes I am comparing them and they have everything to do with each other. You focusing on the objects and missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is freedom. Rosa Parks and every other black person has always had the right to sit where ever they wanted on public transportation but people, like you, always wants to put limits on freedom and the exercising of our rights.

My right to own a firearm is just as valid as Rosa Parks right to sit anywhere she wanted to on the bus.

I want to know why you think that A) my firearm is a "violent weapon" when most of the time it sits in a gun safe and has never ever been used in violence, B) why you think it was built to kill people. My firearm was designed to put holes in paper targets. I have family members who bought firearms that were designed to kill deer.

Can those firearms kill people? Yes but so can my car and more people die because of cars than from "violent weapons". The numbers aren't even close. Why don't you refer to cars as "violent vehciles?" Why don't you want to limit people's usage of "violent vehicles?"

What if my only purpose in purchasing a firearm was to protect my family and others from evil people? What if 99.9999% of all firearms purchased were purchased with the exact same intent?

Did you know that the CDC found that firearms were used 3.5 times more to stop a crime than to commit a crime. That is only the reported times it was used. So many times a gun is never fired when stopping a crime and because of that it never gets reported.

But you don't care about any of that because you just want to control people and take their rights away from them. You want Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus or not on the bus at all. In fact you want Rosa back on the plantation picking cotton for the master. Sounds about Democrat.

Thanks

How ironic that your ilk were the ones who didn't let her sit at the front but now you're trying to use that to defend your recreational use of firearms as if her freedoms have anything to do with your fun or your paranoia of people like her.

It's pretty disgusting when you think about it, that you're comparing owning your toy that sits in a gun safe and was "designed to put holes in paper targets" like it's anywhere near the same thing as Rosa Parks being oppressed in every aspect of her being by people like you, who now condemn her off-spring for showing the side effects of that same oppression, and ridicule people like her for protesting the centuries-long denials of those freedoms.

Okay Tariq Nasheed.

What do you mean by 'his ilk'? How do you know what ethnicity he is?

It's like a rewrite of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, with that guy that was utilizing him for his oratory skills for 'the cause'...

Same with the plethora of MLK and Malcolm X memes & quotes and that festooned this place last year like they were candy coated tie dye streamers for Mardi Gras...
It was like a contest to see who can get it most wrong, and I mean by the 'both' fake sides of this one dimensional so-called spectrum that consists of nothing but lonely self-aggrandizing hypocrites for whom waving a team flag supersedes the very point they're supposedly trying to make.

"Rosa Parks and every other black person has always had the right to sit where ever they wanted on public transportation"

That is ridiculously false, she was arrested for it.

"Did you know that the CDC found that firearms were used 3.5 times more to stop a crime than to commit a crime. That is only the reported times it was used. "

No, and I can't find that figure.

"That is only the reported times it was used"

Also false. People can say whatever they want in survey, and do.
The reporting of actual crimes involving guns is far more accurate than someone in a poll claiming theirs prevented one.
Further, that does not alter nor erase the fact that said crimes utilizing guns were committed.

Southern whites owned slaves on their plantations, not political parties. My folks were Democrats in the 1960s. Pretty sure they didn't own slaves in New York nor desired to.

As for the Second Amendment, it gave men the right to be drafted at a moments notice at a time the USA couldn't afford a standing professional army. They were so broke, in fact, these conscripted militia were expected to supply their own arms and ammo, and be proficient in the use of one. That's what the amendment says, and that was the purpose and intention.

"'Rosa Parks and every other black person has always had the right to sit where ever they wanted on public transportation'

That is ridiculously false, she was arrested for it."

You misunderstood what I said. Did she or did she not have the right to sit anywhere on that bus? Yes, she was arrested but that does not mean she did not have the right to sit anywhere on that bus. She was arrested because Democrats are control freaks and passed unconstitutional laws that violated her right to sit where ever she wanted to sit.

"'Did you know that the CDC found that firearms were used 3.5 times more to stop a crime than to commit a crime. That is only the reported times it was used. '

No, and I can't find that figure."

Just because you couldn't find it does not make what I said false. Look harder. The CDC, themselves, didn't want this research to go public but it slipped out anyway.

Long before the CDC said anything, those who pay attention to the facts have always known that guns are used much more often to stop a crime than to commit a crime. Just living in an area where there are no or very few restrictions on guns should be enough to justify that because crime is ALWAYS lower in those places then in places where gun control is so strict that it is nearly impossible to buy a gun. Chicago and New York City have the highest murder rates in the nation and the most strictest gun laws in the nation. Where as cities like Dallas have a much much lower murder rate. It is such a disparity that if you were to remove all of the cities with very strict gun laws from the total number of murders the United States would go from having one of the highest murder rates in the world to being one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

The reason is just sooooooo simple. Criminals do not want to get shot when committing a crime. If you live in Chicago you might as well paint a bullseye on your back because criminals know that you are unarmed. Criminals will always be able to get guns. The vast majority of guns used to commit a crime are stolen. A smaller percentage came from the black market. A statistically insignificant number of guns used in the commission of a crime were legally purchased.

No, Rosa Parks did NOT have the right to sit where she wanted on that bus, that's why she was arrested for it.

And it was white SOUTHERNERS like YOU and your DAD that made it illegal for her to do so because y'all wish she was still your property, so shush.

As for the CDC, post their figures and be done with it.

I didn't read the rest.

So I learned something doing my own research. It was the CDC, like I said, and it was information that they published. The data was published by year starting in the 80's and going to 2016. However, you had to extrapolate that data to find out that "defensive gun use" was 3.6 times greater than criminal gun use.

That is exactly what Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck and fellow Florida State University professor Marc Gertz. They wanted to find out the Defensive Gun Use statistics for their own research and while that question was discussed by the CDC they never put it into a formal document. So the two professors looked through what they could find.

Here is the link to the article where I found out about the study: https://policetribune.com/cdc-buried-study-showing-guns-are-used-more-often-for-protection-than-crime/

Here is a link to the actual study performed by Kleck and Gertz: https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Reports-Studies/18-02-14-CDC_Surveys_%26_Frequency_of_Defensive_Gun_Use-Kleck.pdf

You can read the whole study if you want but the pertinent information is found on Page 6 where it says, "CDC’s results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals."

"However, you had to extrapolate that data "

AKA retroffit it to fit your lie.

Post THE CDC figure you alluded to because I ain't gonnna do your homework for you.
You understranding me, or are you gonna lynch me for disobedience [checks to see if the DNC has ordered my folks to do it for you]?

You see how this works?

Really? You'll say anything just to keep from being wrong won't you? That is not what extrapolate means. It means to pull data from several sources to arrive at a conclusion. Retrofit means to take something old and use it with something modern by creating an interface that will allow the older object to work with the newer.

Lynch you? Is that all you got? Character assassinations?

Unfortunately yes. You can show them all the proof in the world but they will still refuse to believe it and just continue to live in a reality where truth is based on their feelings

You are absolutely right. When anyone on the right says the sky is blue people like VagabondSouffle will be there to argue that it's green. They refuse to see what it right in front of them. I lead that horse to water, it is up to him to drink.

And who died from it?

You lied and cited a bogus figure.

Stop lying or post it.

As a human she had the same right to the freedom of movement someone from another race. Do you disagree or are you that dense you can't comprehend the argument?

There is a difference between rules and rights. The jews had the right to life even if it was lawful for Germans to genocide them.

Oh and I'm sure it wasn't people like him, that put rights before popular opinion, that implemented segregation. It's dumbasses that agree with the majority, the elite and the media that crap on human rights and the constitution.

I love how this toe head keeps looking for figures instead of logic and common sense. The appeal to authority is a disease of the left. Guns don't stop crimes unless there are figures. Voter fraud doesn't exist at all because there is no evidence. But they sent out letters to everyone even dead people, anyone can fill them out and there are videos showing people buying votes. NO EVIDENCE!! SHOW ME A STUDY!!

Braindead.

tl;dr

No, she did not. That's why she got arrested for violating the law which restricted her from doing so. Or did you think they just did it because they didn't admire her fashion sense?

You've been on Planet Earth long? Or is the gaseous anomaly you call your head really so far up your lower digestive track that it is truly that blinded to reality?

Here let me do what the lefties do and post a definition for you.

Good, now be a good widdle weftie and READ it. Or does "legal entitlement" truly escape the infinitesimally small bit of fetid flotsam hissing betwixt your ears?

Rights are conceived, created, expanded upon by people and codified by law and assigned in accordance to said law by arbitrators of the law. That's why what is being discussed are rights listed under the - wait for it - Bill of RIGHTS. That's why the arrest of Rosa Parks lead to the Civil RIGHTS Movement. That's why that brewed situations which necessitated the passage of the Civil RIGHTS Act of 1964.

They're not some sort of inate quality in DNA, an ether immersing our cells, some energy wavelength weaving through the very fabric of Space/Time itself.

They're something that was first written by Cyrus the Great in Iran round 2600 years ago.
Before that they didn't exist.

Does this sink in your tiny corner of the echo chamber, or would you require me to explain this to you with crayons and a coloring book?

Found this line just last night while doing research as advised by our learned colleagues here.

Now some may ask if the translation is accurate, that how could God have known about guns a literal eternity before Ted 'Tha Draft Dodging Nuge' Nugent used them on VH1 to show kidz how to hunt his own hand-fed pet antelopes at his ranch/petting zoo.
But hey, we ARE talking the God of the Judeans here, and He is all knowing, and in His infinitateded wisdom He knew about guns long before the Chinese inventeded them...

I'm glad you found the one meaning in all of the possible meanings to keep pointing to and ignored the rest like a true neanderthal.

We are specifically talking about America here. What does the constitution say? The right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. The civil rights act was not necessary because she already had the right to liberty as entitled by the constitution and even though that right was trod upon it does not negate the fact it existed. So did the recourse which was the Supreme Court who is there to make sure entities do not encroach upon rights and found in her favor. The Civil Rights act didn't get her a seat or anyone the right to vote they already had those rights.

Is that explained well enough for a 2 year old to understand it?

What are babbling about now, you historical ignoramus?

Who is "we," you and the snowflake you're white kkknighting (see what I did there) for?

Go fetch another screenshot and lob in some more cutesy Trumpytard buzzwords tailored for the low brow cult set who can't say anything unless it's scripted for y'all. You don't even know what's being discussed here, kid.
I'd suggest you get a brain and read a book, but WE both know that ain't happening.

Laterz.

Lost and can't admit it. What a f**king loser lmfao.

Bullshit!..... "Rights are conceived, created, expanded upon by people and codified by law and assigned in accordance to said law by arbitrators of the law." BULL SHIT! ALL HUMANs are created with rights from the moment they are conceived. they are only codified and written into law and constitutions by fallible men. rights are inalienable! meaning they are God giving and cannot be morally taken away.

That's silly.

Butchaknowwhat, I'll play:

You go find me where any of the GodS ever mentioned having annointed thine triggered self with these imaginary rights that, well, the first Messiah - the aforementioned Cyrus, a mortal - was the only one to come up with well after the notion of creation was created.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand GO!

Ever heard of basic human rights?

hmmmmm, might have come across it once or a gazillion times in this meme.

Have you?

Yes, I have. :)

You understood the bit about Cyrus the Great then?

Think I missed that part of the conversation.

No worries, even the 2 open air cranium sporting clowns that I've said it to missed that and everything else I said while sticking their poo dipped thumbs in their eyes, so no surprise you and the rest of their fabulous flock of white knighters missed it.

Maybe I just don't care about most of the conversation. :P

Just because we live in the South, doesn't mean we're anymore racist than you. You can't blame the actions of my ancestors from over 200 years ago on me. Let's not forget the North won the war, and they were the ones who passed that law.

Oh, I didn't, the OP did.
Granted, following an extended meandering fake debate here can be tiresome, but the OP has a tendency to PROVE what he's trying to pretend to disagree with but then suddenly inserts, "Therefore the Democrats did it," to call it a "win" just like he said about his mother's ancestors owning slaves.

I said last week on this site that I've never met a person who wasn't a racist, and also posted pics showing Asians being attacked by people in 'the hood' who weren't exactly 'white' when someone was claiming only whites can be racist.

Now you're going off-topic. Much like every Liberal, you don't tend to stay on topic. Instead, you provide words and evidence that is entirely off-topic, so surely and slowly you can drift away from the discussion because you know you will loose the argument by staying on a single topic. I'd like to also mention, that not everybody in the world is racist. Let's not forget your news source doesn't mention anything about racism, and let's remember these guys are in Chinatown New York. It's obviously a guy just committing a robbery, him robbing Asians doesn't change a damn thing. Just because you rob a race that isn't yours, doesn't mean you're racist. Let's also not forget these guys (according to you) are a gang in CHINATOWN! Chinatown has a very large majority of Asians in it, and a bunch of black guys that you act like is the hood and fighting people doesn't make them racist. Besides, those images provide no proof that the people in the images are racist. Those guys could've been in an argument, and that guy spraying febreeze/febreze could've just thought that the vehicle they were in smelt bad. You should stop judging people by their skin color, and actually accept the fact that skin color doesn't mean a thing. If we're all racist, then your precious little Snowflake ass can go hide in their safe-space away from society like a rat. Y'know what, I am offended that you're offended.

tl;dr

Try READING what is posted before posting from your delightful Russbot script.

If you feel guilty about others always looking at you as if you're racist, then perhaps a little introspection is due? A guilty conscience IS, after all, by definition a guilty conscience.
Weird, innit?

Maybe you should stop acting like every little action people such as I do is racist. Maybe you should try reading what I say before you post your insults that mean absolutely nothing to me?

No, I won't.

The fact that you're so busy trying to contradict what I posted despite the fact that is was in SUPPORT of what YOU SAID shows how disengenuous you are.

The best part? You're trying so hard to prove me wrong, you've succeeded -
YES, you ARE a racist.
YES, YOU like the OP, come from a racist lineage.
YES, you are, have been, and always shall be racist.
It's the only hope you have of elevating your own deservedly low opinion of yourself.
A failed hope, at that, but that's something whose stench your backwards ilk is used to.

Thanks fer playin, twinkles, hope you don't melt in one place

too much!

Typical Liberal. Always acting like their evidence is 100% correct, even though it isn't.

Responding to this:

"No, I won't.

The fact that you're so busy trying to contradict what I posted despite the fact that is was in SUPPORT of what YOU SAID shows how disengenuous you are.

The best part? You're trying so hard to prove me wrong, you've succeeded -
YES, you ARE a racist.
YES, YOU like the OP, come from a racist lineage.
YES, you are, have been, and always shall be racist.
It's the only hope you have of elevating your own deservedly low opinion of yourself.
A failed hope, at that, but that's something whose stench your backwards ilk is used to.

Thanks fer playin, twinkles, hope you don't melt in one place

too much!"

That's your opinion, and I don't really care what you think I am. You really don't know who or what I am.

Though you are correct about how anyone can be racist. I'll give you that.

Just a beautiful day in the neighborhood...

"Knocking a 91yo old Asian man for being Asian and walking on with arms raised in the air like a champ was only just a mugging. He'll come back for his wad of cash later, derp!"

That's the spirit, defend a foul stench of an excuse for a waste of oxygen like that fine upstanding citizen. Probably heard the theme from Rocky wafting in the background and got inspired.

Disgusting.

Don't like the racist rep? Don't ask for the racist rep. DONE.

"Just a beautiful day in the neighborhood...

"Knocking a 91yo old Asian man for being Asian and walking on with arms raised in the air like a champ was only just a mugging. He'll come back for his wad of cash later, derp!"

That's the spirit, defend a foul stench of an excuse for a waste of oxygen like that fine upstanding citizen. Probably heard the theme from Rocky wafting in the background and got inspired.

Disgusting.

Don't like the racist rep? Don't ask for the racist rep. DONE."

There's no evidence he's attacking an Asian man just for being Asian.

No evidence - other than the attack, that is.
The one you in your asstoot (see what I did there?) analysis was a mugging or a street fight as that 91yo man was walloped from behind and that pos kept walking doing his victory cheer? The rest of them also, where anti-Asian slurs were yelled at the victims of your ilk during these 'pugalist matches for monetary gain'?

Golly, shame your keen observational skills couldn't be utilized by law enforcement.

Your inane drivel begins to bore me a lot?

1. He pushed the guy down, and that made his hands go up in the air. It's not a victory cheer, and the video/article doesn't show anything about him saying racial slurs.
2. Nothing racist happened in the video. All they did was push an Asian guy down, and rob a store.

I understand the vast expanse inside your cranium is chock full of sheer emptiness, but that hardly does much to assist your lying faculties.

You let me know where in the video the boxing match/mugging occurred as you claimed.

Lemme guess, you voted Trump?

Perhaps you should actually learn how to observe and analyze things, instead of pulling ignorance out of nowhere.

"I understand the vast expanse inside your cranium is chock full of sheer emptiness, but that hardly does much to assist your lying faculties.

You let me know where in the video the boxing match/mugging occurred as you claimed.

Lemme guess, you voted Trump?"

You're just an idiot. You don't know a single thing do you? Let ME guess, you voted for Biden?

Face it, you've already lost. You're just trying to pull it off into another argument so you can seem like you're winning, but you aren't If you actually watched and looked at your evidence then you would've known you were wrong.

Lost what?
What are you, 6?

You're just another lying Trumper with nothing valid to say, which, of course, is the story of your life. Even photographic evidence and police reports mean nothing to your delusional trip.

But do carry on, snowflake, you racists are entertaining.

"What are you, 6?

You're just another lying Trumper with nothing valid to say, which, of course, is the story of your life. Even photographic evidence and police reports mean nothing to your delusional trip.

But do carry on, snowflake, you racists are entertaining."

You're delusional. If you won't actually observe, and acknowledge that your claims are false then I shall stop arguing as I know it's pointless and you'll keep throwing petty insults at me. Don't think you've won, because you haven't. You lost a long time ago.

I have no claims to make.
I deal in facts.

You blabber triggered automated reactions hoping they'd soothe the tattered remains of what you could almost call an ego if you had an actual ego as opposed to a void that is your only identifiable quality. You're a blip on the screen, a nothing.

I would also like to mention the fact that your bloodline and skin color doesn't make you racist. Just because one of my relatives that is long dead that may or may not have had slaves doesn't make me racist at all. I have Black, Mexican, and Mixed friends. We all agree that we aren't racist, and we hang out and live normal lives. Like I said, you've had a relative who was cruel or had some bad traits, but does that make you racist or evil? No. You choose your own path, and what you're doing currently is racist, as you act as if you were superior to everybody. You can be racist to your own race as well y'know?

Scroll above and below this one to see all and the comment they reply to:

imgflip.com/i/518aec#com10112342

Women need more guns.

How many are killed by a hammer and what's the difference? How many women are saved by guns when they would be otherwise killed? Did you know your meme and logic are trash?

I just posted my source. Sorry if it's not Fox News or Christian radio.

Make petty insults all you want. It's not helping your case.

69% of those were with a handgun. 9 out of 10 knew their offender. Out of those who knew their offender, 63% were killed by a husband or significant other. https://vpc.org/press/nearly-2000-women-murdered-by-men-in-one-year-new-violence-policy-center-study-finds/

Removing guns isn't gonna help anything. In fact, there have been far over 1,476 people murdered with the use of knives or sharp objects in 2019. While the guns have killed more people, that doesn't change the fact that you could easily resort to a knife or other murder weapons. A gun or handgun is just the easiest thing to use at the time, and let's be real here, if those women had actual training and a weapon they could've easily defended themselves or called the police. Besides, even if you remove guns there are other sources that you could buy them from such as black markets. Removing guns won't change a thing.

Duh I'm too stupid to get peoples points. Like when someone explains lack of guns will not change wife murder rates and if anything increase them since women will have no recourse, I just repeat my self and throw out some stats like a retard to seem informed.

Here have a link too while I drool on my phone.

How many are black? 50%?

I was skimming for something pertinent to what someone else had said, and saw this now:

"Chicago and New York City have the highest murder rates in the nation and the most strictest gun laws in the nation."

More of your lies.
Save for an uptick since last year since the idiots let out prisoners because of Covid as well as a new law regarding bail, NYC had been the safest big city in America for a few years running, even safer than London.
Also the Chigago image is skewed, as that figure has to do with sheer numbers, that coupled with the number of people living in the city, is expected.

However when ranked in accordance to per capita crime rates, other places outrank both.

The rural Southwest - inculding Texas - is far more dangerous in proportion to population, and Alaska ranks highest in the USA in terms of per capita violent crime rate.

You lie too much.

Damn you actually have a valid point Vagabond! My mind is blown.

Shocking, I know.

Here's where Vagabond's point falls utterly apart. Guns don't kill people. People kill people and sometimes they use a gun to do it with. If you take away all of the guns those same people will find something else to kill people with.

The problem is that even if the government repeals the 2nd amendment and confiscates every firearm in the country, there is and always will be a black market. Not even the Soviet Union could stop the black market. Capitalism will always exist even if it is outlawed.

And now we have 3D printers so now anyone can just simply print a gun. They may not last very long before falling apart but they can still kill people and you can always print another one and another one after that.

Look at London. They banned guns and that didn't stop the killing so then they banned knives. Eventually they are going to have to ban hammers, lighters, cricket bats, rocks, cars, hands, feet, everything.

It was never about the tool, it is about the people who use the tool.

You have to watch out for Vagabond. He/She's not a thinker. He/She only knows out to repeat what his overlords tell him.

Underestimating your opponent is a common downfall.

Vagabond is very good at throwing out insults. If all you have is insults then you have no argument. That is not an underestimation that is a fact. Thinkers don't insult, they present a reasoned and coherent rebuttal in a calm discussion but Vagabond has never done that, at least to me anyway.

See, once again you are underestimating. We deal with lots of idiots here. I get it. I haven't read this whole thread. I sometimes lash out, sometimes you do, sometimes they do, sometimes everyone does. But that doesn't mean we are not thinkers. Vaga goes against the leftist hive mind at times, where 75 % of leftists here never do.

Yes we all lash out from time to time. My experience is that lashing out is all Vagabond does. But I will give him/her the benefit of the doubt seeing that you have had a different experience with him/her. Especially if he/she goes against the leftist hive mind. That takes a lot these days. Thanks.

Well yeah, all the left ever knows how to do is either name call or repeat what they hear on their echo chambers.

May their own critical thinking RIP

They do what the TV tells them to do.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/top-10-u-s-cities-with-highest-murders-in-2020-877995/

In 2020 the highest to lowest of the 10 ten cities are:
1. Chicago
2. New York
3. Philadelphia
4. Baltimore
5. Houston
6. Los Angeles
7. St Louis
8. Dallas
9. Kansas City
10. Indianapolis

Me not do links, and blogs are nothing but personal opinion. Your cute source is invalid..

Yes, CITIES. Cities are things with lots of people.

PER CAPITA is something different.

PS: What part of "prior to 2020" did you not understand?

PPS: What is Houston and Dallas from the so-safe-Texas you referred to doing there?

That wasn't a blog. There was a Yahoo Finance article that talked about the cities with high crime rates and if you wanted to see which cities you had to click a link and that link took me to the page which address I posted.

The counted the number of murders in each city and ordered them by that. I did not verify where they got their data from but Business Insider (who operates Insider Monkey) should be somewhat reliable.

Dallas and especially Houston are blue cities, like Austin, in a red state. Their gun laws are a little stricter in those cities than outside of the cities. I am not sure why this happens but if a city grows to a major metropolis all of the sudden everyone goes insane and becomes Democrats and then the killing starts. I guess living so close to other people makes you lose your sense of personal responsibility. Country and small town folk still have a grip on reality. This is true of just about any red state. The largest city in a red state will typically be blue. Colorado would be a red state if Denver didn't exist. Utah is a very red state but Salt Lake City is as blue as any blue city.

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/top-10-u-s-cities-with-highest-murders-in-2020-877995/

https://www.insidermonkey.com/
blog
/top-10-u-s-cities-with-highest-murders-in-2020-877995/

Oh, wait, did you say "Yahoo Finance"

You mean THIS Yahoo Finance article that said THIS:

"In this article we are going to list the cities based on the total number of murders per day, rather than total number of murders per 100,000 people. Our data is sourced from Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. We will be using 2020 data that are reported by cities that have a population of at least 250,000. Some of these cities report their crime stats in real-time and others are a few months behind. That's why we are going to calculate the number of murders per day in 2020 and then rank the cities using this data point. Please note that we don't have 2020 statistics for some of the cities like Detroit, Memphis, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth."

Please note this:

"In this article we are going to list the cities based on the total number of murders per day, rather than total number of murders per 100,000 people."

"We will be using 2020 data that are reported by cities that have a population of at least 250,000."

and this:

"Please note that we don't have 2020 statistics for some of the cities like Detroit, Memphis, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth."

Basically once again you're verifying what I said, this time in regards to total tallies vs per capita rates,
and referring to an article which mentions having incomplete data, including yet another chunk of crime ridden Texas.

Yes, Virginia, the larger the concentration of people, the larger the concentration of what people do, including crime.

Shocker, I know,,,

And your point is? Does it have to be murders per 100,000 instead of total murders per day? Death is death. They're both valid stats. This was just the first article that came up in my search.

The point is that Chicago and New York are still very high in the murders per 100,000.

Hey!!! What gives???? You'll read an entire Yahoo Finance and Insider Monkey article but you can read more the 5 words of anything I say? You don't read blogs but you read this one if it is a blog. These days the mainstream media is not better than a blog written by some guy living in his mom's basement.

https://www.safewise.com/blog/most-dangerous-cities/

& because you like blogs!

Read what whole article?

You don't say anything. Basic hs essay writing format: thesis, points - but instead of arguing for and against, much of the time you're actually in AGREEMENT with that what you claim to be countering, openly conceding it even, yet 3/4s down you always go "... therefore, Democrat" and end by reiterating your thesis as if somehow you proved your case by completely dodging it with a pile of debris for the reader to wade through.

It would actually make for a funny read if you weren't so dull and it wasn't so by-the-numbers and utterly devoid of logic and consistency.

There are plenty I disagree with quite a bit on this site yet are a worthy read. Plus they make sense even if we have differing viewpoints.

I would figure you a troll if you weren't so earnestly boring, and continue typing wall of texts to be ignored. You're like KylieFan in that regard, except even he is making some sort of argument as opposed to flicking a whole mess of bs at the wall hoping no one will notice all you post is confetti with no core.

If I am so boring then why do you even bother responding to me? Apparently something I say has some interest to you?

I don't doubt that I am boring but I think you are resorting to character assassination rather that actual fact. It is a common tactic used by people who cannot refute someone's argument.

Also I have looked for more stats and most of them are in murder per 100,000. Chicago is lower than what I constantly hear about that city. However Detroit tops a lot of lists or is near the top and I have heard about it being a violent city as well.

Your list is not the murder rate it is a overall crime rate. They base crime on a common misconception that poverty breeds crime. There is a lot of crime in some lower income areas but but not all lower income areas. Some lower income areas have very low crime. Poverty is not the cause of crime.

Plus the ignored external problems like how Phoenix, Arizona is the kidnapping capitol of the world and that is because of the crime that comes up from Mexico. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world and that crime frequently crossed the border. It also explains Albuquerque and El Paso (which was not on that list but should be).

According to Wikipedia, Tijuana, Mexico has the highest murder rate in the world. That city is on the border of California. I grew up in So. Cal. I've been to Tijuana many times.

Regardless your stats are not what I was talking about. I was talking exclusively murder rate, not crime rate. What I was saying is that the murder rate is higher in cities with more restrictive gun laws. That is still true. You haven't done anything, other than insult me, to prove that I am wrong. I don't even know what you want to argue that I am wrong. Why would you call me a liar because of murder rates? That makes no sense at all. I wasn't personally attacking Chicago and New York but they do have high murder rates. L.A. has a high murder rate and lived most of my life in the LA metro.

I think that perhaps the reason why you picked this one study is because they put Anchorage as number 1 and Alaska is a very gun friendly state. You were using a report that fit your narrative. Whereas I just grabbed the first one that came up in my search. But mine wasn't good enough for you because it was not in murders per 100,000 and it was a blog. BTW yours is also not in murders per 100,000 because it is not about murders, it is about all crime.

Don't take this the wrong way, toots, but this ain't a dating site, so save the lipstick and the promise ring, I ain't courting you.

There's no argument to refute. I present none, and you sure haven't presented any.
You want to argue in contrarian, but you're one trick "My maternal great great parents owned slaves, so therefore Democrats yadda yadda.." shill.

Me? I present facts, like that about per capita crime rates I've been referring to for days while you golly-gee-the-most-populous-cities-have-the-most-crime deflect trying to pretend you are truly too thick to comprehend the point.

Wait, did I say "pretend"? My mistake, ya got me! tee hee

May I ask, darling, where do you get get your sources from? 🤔

The dictionary, hun. *kisses*

Chicago*

including*

"'That is only the reported times it was used'

Also false. People can say whatever they want in survey, and do.
The reporting of actual crimes involving guns is far more accurate than someone in a poll claiming theirs prevented one."

You missed the point again. And I pretty much answered it in my last post. So what part of an unreported crime is it where people will say anything? If it is unreported it is unreported. People are NOT saying anything at all. We only know of them through word of mouth. People might tell their friends or family but they don't make any official statements where they "can say whatever".

Just remember this, criminals do not like getting shot while committing a crime. None of them. There is no person alive, barring any severe mental disorders, who want to get shot. If they see a gun pointed at them they act just like a liberal and wet their pants. It doesn't matter what you see in movies or TV, no one is so hardened that when they see a gun pointed at them they don't begin to fear for their lives.

So many times a person just pulled out a handgun and that is all it takes to change a criminal's mind from ever doing anything.

"Southern whites owned slaves on their plantations, not political parties. My folks were Democrats in the 1960s. Pretty sure they didn't own slaves in New York nor desired to."

Southern white Democrats owned slaves. Because the Democrat party was the pro-slavery party. That is just a historical fact. You may not like it but facts are facts.

There is absolutely nothing in the 2nd amendment about the draft or conscription (as it was called back then). The 2nd amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, is not about what it allows the people to do, it is a restriction placed on the government. It tell the government that it cannot stop the people from forming a militia to defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Because, as Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It also tells the government that the people cannot be deprived of their right to bear arms.

If you think the Constitution is written to place limits on the people then you had better actually read the Constitution. The Constitution places the shackles entirely on the government and NOT the people. The Democrats screwed history up so much that people do not even know what the Constitution is about!!!!!!

The point is that you're INTENTIONALLY citing a completely bogus figure which according to you are based on polls of unreported unsubstantiated anecdotes vs actual tabulated reported crime figures - a number you have yet to quote the CDC on despite claiming you did some fabulous research on it and I haven't even though I'm the only one that did here.
Opinions do not supersede facts.

Slavery was not exclusive to a certain party, one which was not in the Confederacy at all.
Most Southerners at the time were illiterate, did not vote, and were not registered with any party.
Southern whites - y'all people - owned slaves, had segregation, limited the rights of non-whites, violently oppressed them, and lynched those who got out of line.

You were alive when all this (minus skavery - oh, wait, you have prison chain gangs which were disproportionately non-white by design and created to make up for the need of free labor after the end of slavery in the South) was still occurring.

I'm pretty sure Democrats in the North had no such thing going. Would you like me to ask my mommy and daddy to make sure? Those darn JFK(D) and LBJ(D) jus' keepin' that KKK alive, huh?

I posted the 2nd A right there, I grant you the right to peruse it at your leisure. The first half incuded.

I just ripped your first point apart in another post where I gave you links to the actual research about defensive gun use.

Prior to 1854 there was no Republican party. There were only Democrats and Whigs. Democrats were pro-slavery. The Whigs were formed in 1834 to oppose the "tyranny" of Democrat Andrew Jackson. Their opposition to Jackson was over the issue of slavery. The Whigs opposed it. The Whigs fell apart after the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854. That bill gave the territories the right to declare themselves a slave state or a non-slave state.

Many of the Whigs got together that same year and created a new party, the Republican party with the express purpose of ending slavery.

So, yeah, technically you are correct because there were some Democrats who were not slave owners. But just because they didn't own slaves it does not mean they opposed it. To be a Democrat back then meant that you supported slavery.

So the Democrat party was the party of every slave owner who wanted to continue owning slaves.

On a different issue, the one thing this nation never was until more recently was uneducated. From day one the founding fathers pushed public education. The only uneducated people were those who refused to send their kids to school. Education declined in the South after reconstruction. Where education began it's general decline was when Woodrow Wilson was president. It has been declining ever since. We no longer teach kids how to think for themselves. We only teach what liberals want them to think. And more recently some idiot produced a fantasy called the 1619 Project that is now being introduced into our schools. It is not based on any historical facts, it is pure anti-American propaganda.

Slavery had been a contested issue since before our founding. You had better believe that those who were pro-slavery were showing up at the polls, especially when the issue of slavery was being threatened.

No, you didn't.

You lied.
I requested an exact quote from the CDC which you haven't supplied because you can't because it doesn't exist because you made it up.
Now, you can rip all the farts out your colon you want, but that don't change the fact that you lied and are still lying.

Cute, an instant history synopsis courtesy of Google.
Pretty soon you'll get to the part of how many of your grrrrr grrrrr DemonDemz were in YOUR treasured Confederacy.

Your trite "yeah, but Democrats/Liberals..." schtick is tired and lame.

Democrats were never pro-slavery, they were pro-States Rights, and saw slavery as a states' issue as opposed to a Federal one as big-goverment Federalist Republicans did. That's why the Civil War was between North and South, not parties, as your silly 2016 revisionist fanfic likes to pretend it can pretend it was.
Northern Democrats cleaved from the South on the issue then (as they did a century later on your legacy residue of it you retained as YOUR 'heritage'), and Lincoln's Republicans allowed the 3 slave holding Border States to remain in the Union with slavery allowed as well.
So save your partisan hack fairy tales for your fellow cultists on Gab.

btw, anyone tell you that it's 2021 yet, and your Trumpian Doublespeak is passe?

In case you were wondering, when I see your lies piling up and getting sillier I start zoning out and stop reading.

When I first heard this information it was reported as the CDC has confirmed it. Technically they did but the CDC is anti-gun so they would never put their data together to show defensive gun use. So a couple of professors looked at the data they did publish and based on that data they found the answer that the CDC would never tell you but already knew.

Regardless, I don't need the CDC or those two professors. Common sense (of which you are bereft) tells you that no one wants to ever get shot. Not even criminals. If you show a gun or even point a gun at a criminal they are not going to rob, rape, murder, whatever you.

By that logic alone it is enough to defeat your premise.

Not Google. It was the History Channel. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded Google HATES non-leftists so I doubt they would have linked to this article. If they did it would be on page 50 of your search results. But I had a general idea of this anyway, I just wanted to clarify the dates.

"Democrats were never pro-slavery, they were pro-States Rights" Oh brother. Go to the store and buy yourself a history book. Preferably an older history book, like from the prior to Woodrow Wilson, and not one based on the same mythology that told you that.

"btw, anyone tell you that it's 2021 yet, and your Trumpian Doublespeak is passe?" And here I thought I was being as straight forward as I could possibly be. I don't speak in doublespeak anyway but if I did I couldn't use it with you. The plain truth is confusing enough to you. Seriously? What does Trump have to do with any of what I have said?

"In case you were wondering, when I see your lies piling up and getting sillier I start zoning out and stop reading." Well that is your loss. You might of learned something... Wait... who am I kidding... You already think you know it all but what you know is all wrong.

Anyway, if you're not reading my replies to your nonsense then why even bother. Oh yeah.... I forgot. You never read past the first sentence anyway. You won't read this. I can say anything I want to you and you will never know it.

So I am done..... This is just boring trying to enlighten the brain dead.

There is no such CDC figure.
You lied.
Period.

Dude, Lincoln freed the slaves. He was a republican. You have obviously been brainwashed by the 1612 propaganda. Trump was not that bad at all. And neither are his voters. Nobody is racist, homophobic, sexist or anything else that you keep labeling them as. You and the rest of the left have seriously got to snap yourself out of this NPC reality you live in. I'm not trying to insult you either. I'm telling you this from my own perspective. There's two sides of the same coin when it comes to this country that you don't seem to realize. This is an "Us vs Them" reality and you and all the other leftist liberals created it. I had a hand in it too at first because I was also one of you so I'm not a saint myself, but I woke up and saw everything for what it really is.

Please take some consideration in this. You are seeing America the wrong way and and it's not what you think it is.

What the hell are you babbling about? 1612 wha?

Lincoln didn't free the slaves. Stop jibbering revisionist bs you have no idea about and LEARN some history.
Try starting with what century the Civil War occurred in.
Then look up the Border States.

It's 2021. Stop being a partisan hack bot, it ain't cute anymore.

Ya still answered my questions, sweetie pie,,,

Sorry. I meant the 1619 project. If Lincoln didn't free the slaves then who did?

The 1619 wha?

If you are that ignorant about Lincoln & slavery, look it up.

Of all of the Africans who were sold into slavery and shipped to the new land only about a quarter of them came to the United States. At most only about 7% of the population owned slaves and of that there were thousands of free blacks who owned black slaves. There were also a significant number of Native Americans who owned slaves.

So when you are saying "Southern whites - y'all people - owned slaves" you are speaking out of ignorance of the facts. Here is what I know about my ancestors. There are two family lines that I descend from who owned slaves on my mother's side. I don't know of any on my dad's side. I have a long history of lineage in the Southern states.

As for me I believe it is reprehensible that any person or system of government (aka Socialism) has the right to own another human being. I do not condone any form of slavery for any reason. I don't condemn my ancestors because they were living in a different time. I have learned it is a bad idea to judge the past over current morals or ideas. I know that we will be judged because there are now more sex slaves then all of the African slaves in all of North, Central and South America combined. How are people in the future going to judge us. I don't condone sex slavery either. Not to mention we have committed genocide on the unborn and continue doing so using half a century old medical knowledge to justify it.

"had segregation, limited the rights of non-whites, violently oppressed them, and lynched those who got out of line."

Those were all Democrats. Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws. The KKK was entirely made up of Democrats.

"You were alive when all this... was still occurring." Yeah. I was 6 years old when the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed without a single Democrat vote. So I was alive but what are you saying?

"I'm pretty sure Democrats in the North had no such thing going." Really? The biggest KKK rally ever held was in Madison Square Garden. Boston had, at one time, the most Klan members in the country. The North isn't as pure as you would like them to believe. There was a riot in New York City when the slaves were freed. Poor whites didn't want former slaves taking their jobs.

"Those darn JFK(D) and LBJ(D) jus' keepin' that KKK alive, huh?" I don't know about JFK but LBJ said, he'll "keep those n****** voting Democrat for a 100 years".

Socialism is when workers control means of production and the state.

Slave owners owning slaves is Capitalism. They're property, a capital assest.

You say you come from a line of slave owners, then revert to party shill form dodging and demonizing others for what your is your heritage.
Shocker.

Yeah, you guessed it, I didn't read your bunk any further,,,

Workers control NOTHING in Socialism. Look around. Find me one Socialist nation where that has happened. Just one.

Capitalism cannot work at all unless the people are free. The freer they are the better it works for everyone. Once again, look around. Find me one nation where that is not true.

Everything you said is a dodge. I have been very open and honest with you on everything but you run from it and call me the dishonest one.

Find wha?
Would you like the Easter Bunny taking a selfie with the Loch Ness Monster while I'm at it?

There ain't any such thing, son. Never was, never will be.
Welcome to the human race,,,

Now go back to bed and shush with your silly lies.

hmmm, strange, someone else's rather irate alt just chimed on right before you did...
You got fanz!

I thought if I stooped to your level for a moment you might understand.

*pats head*

Yeah, even you're getting tired of repeating the same lying lines,,,

Noight!!!!

There you go again. Running away from the truth. Chicken!

Goodness, did you say you were 62 or 6?

Ok, I'll play with you too:

Define the word/concept "Socialism"

.

.

.

.

.

and given that you keep copypasting, I'm expecting a dictionary definition for sure, k?

Socialism is the public ownership of all property and people. Private ownership is forbidden. All that matters is the collective and the individual is expendable. The state controls the collective. The state controls the means of production in order to feed the collective. If the individual is not producing up to the level the state imposes they are eliminated.

That is the reality of Socialism. It is not all the pretty flowery words they used to sucker the weak minded into accepting their load of BS.

If you try to dodge that and say that what I described is Communism, then you do not know what either Socialism or Communism is.

Oops I think I have exceeded my sentence allotment. You are incapable if reading this many words.

That's the dictionary defintion? Impressive.

Once again another tl;dr, but I got the sneaking suspicion that as usual, all roads lead to your racist parents' Demonkkkratz, grrrrrr grrrrrr,..,

- the one with your matrilineal slavery heritage one was awesome, btw. I didn't read the whole thing, natch, but saw your fave D-word down below.

'scuse the meme repetition, just experimenting with them for other purposes,,,

Well well. How is Miss V doing?

Hey Maggie, how about taking a flight to Venezuela and see how socialism REALLY works out ;) https://youtu.be/eJOXnHnlbTU

What on Earth are you babbling about?

Why don't YOU go if you got a hankering?

btw, Venezuala is not nor ever has been a Socialist state, so save your treasured YT travelogue for your widdle dreams of Love Letters with Kim Jung-un starring Commie Donnie, Kneel4Me.

That's just plain racist. "Sounds about white", do you know how racist that is? Not everybody is the same y'know. Your color and gender doesn't define you. Idiots and Liberals think that white males are just born racist, but those words in themselves are racist. Our entire existence isn't bringing down on your life, and you should accept that instead of complaining about every little thing we do. It's idiots like you who bring inequality into this country. I have black friends, and I am a white male, so please explain how somebody else's actions makes me racist. Go on.

I don't think anyone believes racists are born. And I'm not the one who ran for president and gained rabid, racist followers by villainizing different ethnic groups that reside in this country. Not only did Drumpf have actual white supremacists like Steven Miller appointed to his cabinet and enacting policies which satisfied racist agendas, he went to war with three major groups: African-Americans, Latinos and people from the Middle East.

He was inept, uneducated, inexperienced, and fumbled his way through, but his supporters were willing to die for him. Why? It starts with an R and ends with an M. If you still support Drumpf after all the shit he pulled on this country, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, PAL.

Its cute when antiTrumpers think they are any less seething and hateful.

He didn't declare war on anybody. I can't tell you how many times the Democrats have cut off his sentences, and made him look bad. Let's not forget that Joe Biden said that if you don't vote me, you "ain't black". Trump doesn't choose his followers, and he at least ran the economy well.

Your opinions aren't even your own. Its all "groupthink" created by your very own 'Pravda' echo chamber