Confederate Flag

[the toss 0]

What on earth is all the cow**** going on with the Confederate Flag. I read that South Carolina wants to get rid of it ( and other states too maybe). From what I can gather it has something (who knows what ) to do with the shooting in that church. Why has the conversation settled on an (historical) flag but not the gun availability issue. Cant understand you Yanks sometimes.

[51cent 8]

It doesn't have any thing to do with common sense, it has to do with political correctness. Here is a good quote, NOT from Harry Truman.

Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of **** by the clean end!

[steve6690 0]

It means they don't have to tackle the real issue - unrestricted gun ownership.

[Boogieman 1]

It means they don't have to tackle the real issue - unrestricted gun ownership.

Ownership is not unrestricted - do you know how difficult it is to get a carry permit in NY/NJ?. The problem is not with the law abiding citizen owning a weapon. This has been proven over and over again. The locals with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun crimes. The problem is with the felons who have access to them - including this POS who murdered those precious worshipers.

I urge you to watch some of the armed robberies on youtube - many with machete like knives and tell me that I should not be allowed to own a weapon to protect myself. I happen to no own a firearm, but I believe its my constitutional right to, if I feel the need to protect myself, my family, my fellow citizen or my property. Most of the anti-gun folks tout the virtuosity from the comfort of their picket fence suburban neighborhoods..how dare they.

[survtech 0]

The confederate flag is a symbol of racial division which you Aussies wouldn't understand. The key issue with the confederate flag is that it has often been flown as a symbol of racial intolerance: at Ku Klux Klan rallies, cross burnings, lynchings and many other anti-racial functions.

 

It was originally designed by William Thompson, the Savannah, Georgia, Daily Morning News editor who also stated "As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race..." He also called it "The White Man's Flag."

 

150 years after it ended, most of the U.S has moved on from the Civil War but there are, even today, people who believe the statement "The South Will Rise Again". Those are very often the same people who are highly bigoted.

 

It's long past time to get over it!!!

[the toss 0]

The confederate flag is a symbol of racial division which you Aussies wouldn't understand. The key issue with the confederate flag is that it has often been flown as a symbol of racial intolerance: at Ku Klux Klan rallies, cross burnings, lynchings and many other anti-racial functions.

 

It was originally designed by William Thompson, the Savannah, Georgia, Daily Morning News editor who also stated "As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race..." He also called it "The White Man's Flag."

 

150 years after it ended, most of the U.S has moved on from the Civil War but there are, even today, people who believe the statement "The South Will Rise Again". Those are very often the same people who are highly bigoted.

 

It's long past time to get over it!!!

 

Well we have a similar symbolic flag here (The Eureka) flag which origianated as a flag of defiance during the Victorian goldfields riots in the 1800s. Many people still use it as a flag of civil defiance when they are not happy with government decisions. It has no official status other than historical.Probably the confederate flag should be consigned the same fate - it certainly shouldn't be flown on public buildings.

 

@Boogieman - if the places with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest gun fatalaties then we should have bodies in the streets. So I dont think it is an issue of restrictive gun ownership laws & the only other thing I can think of is a problem of society. No one is born as an armed criminal , they turn into one from an armed law abiding citizen. I honestly understand where you are comming from - I obey the law , I am intelligent , I am sane, I am not a sociopath and I will not murder someone. But you cannot say the same thing about the guy next door or across the road or the ones you work with. The simple fact is that you cannot control the people who have guns but you can at least (try) to control their availability.

[Boogieman 1]

the toss, those statistics are for the US..societies are different, we have open borders with guns that are easily obtainable by criminals. Disarming the citizenry is not the solution, they will simply be sitting ducks. This have been proven over and over again. Even if you can prove it a successful model, its is in direct conflict with the the second amendment. This is a right given to me by the founding fathers. We dont advocate taking cars off the road because 40,000 people a year die in auto accidents. Legal gun ownership is not the issue, the need to focus on the illegal weapons and the criminals.

Did you know that FBI statistics show that about 2/3 of gun related deaths involve criminals shooting at other criminals?

If you look at the statistics in Australia, murders actually went up after the 1996 buyback..they peaked in 1999, then dropped a bit. In fact, 1993 numbers were about the same as 2006. The numbers in austrailia are very low to start. About 400. We are on pace to 400 in Baltimore, a small city in Maryland, this year.

Americans have a right to own firearms and if the politicians are too weak minded to secure borders, get the national guard to inner cities to stomp out murders gangs, thats not my problem. Confiscating weapons from legal gun owners will not solve the problem it will only make legal gun owners sitting ducks. I find it outrageous that politicians have the gall to contemplate confiscation, yet fail to implement common sense measures to mitigate violence.

[steve6690 0]

It means they don't have to tackle the real issue - unrestricted gun ownership.

Ownership is not unrestricted - do you know how difficult it is to get a carry permit in NY/NJ?. The problem is not with the law abiding citizen owning a weapon. This has been proven over and over again. The locals with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun crimes. The problem is with the felons who have access to them - including this POS who murdered those precious worshipers.

I urge you to watch some of the armed robberies on youtube - many with machete like knives and tell me that I should not be allowed to own a weapon to protect myself. I happen to no own a firearm, but I believe its my constitutional right to, if I feel the need to protect myself, my family, my fellow citizen or my property. Most of the anti-gun folks tout the virtuosity from the comfort of their picket fence suburban neighborhoods..how dare they.

 

I'm all for gun ownership in the USA where it would now be impossible and unreasonable to withdraw legally held firearms because of the sheer number in criminal hands. That's kind of where I'm coming from when I say that focussing on a flag avoids having to deal with the gun ownership problem - because it's gone too far and cannot be dealt with. It's squarely in the "too difficult box".

If I lived there I'd want to own a gun, although I'm not sure whether a non U.S national would be allowed. I would probably own a handgun here too if it were allowed but it's not, and never will be again.

I see the logic behind the argument that gun crime is lower in areas where citizens can lawfully carry. It makes total sense to me.

I've actually attended machete and gunpoint (not many) robberies over the years here as part of my job, which I won't go into publicly, and I'm thankful that armed crime is so low here that we don't need to to arm the public, or even the vast majority of police officers (yet).

[Boogieman 1]

It means they don't have to tackle the real issue - unrestricted gun ownership.

Ownership is not unrestricted - do you know how difficult it is to get a carry permit in NY/NJ?. The problem is not with the law abiding citizen owning a weapon. This has been proven over and over again. The locals with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun crimes. The problem is with the felons who have access to them - including this POS who murdered those precious worshipers.

I urge you to watch some of the armed robberies on youtube - many with machete like knives and tell me that I should not be allowed to own a weapon to protect myself. I happen to no own a firearm, but I believe its my constitutional right to, if I feel the need to protect myself, my family, my fellow citizen or my property. Most of the anti-gun folks tout the virtuosity from the comfort of their picket fence suburban neighborhoods..how dare they.

 

I'm all for gun ownership in the USA where it would now be impossible and unreasonable to withdraw legally held firearms because of the sheer number in criminal hands. That's kind of where I'm coming from when I say that focussing on a flag avoids having to deal with the gun ownership problem - because it's gone too far and cannot be dealt with. It's squarely in the "too difficult box".

If I lived there I'd want to own a gun, although I'm not sure whether a non U.S national would be allowed. I would probably own a handgun here too if it were allowed but it's not, and never will be again.

I see the logic behind the argument that gun crime is lower in areas where citizens can lawfully carry. It makes total sense to me.

I've actually attended machete and gunpoint (not many) robberies over the years here as part of my job, which I won't go into publicly, and I'm thankful that armed crime is so low here that we don't need to to arm the public, or even the vast majority of police officers (yet).

Understood. Remember its not about the "need" to arm the public. Gun ownership is a given right just like free speech. I could care less about statistics, when it comes to life and death all I care about is myself and my family. Gun violence can be dealt with easily, its just that the politicians refuse to toughen the penalties for trafficking and carrying an illegal firearm. There is no threat to the public from lawful gun owners.

 

Non-citizens may own firearms https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/ffl-tip-sheet-for-non-u.s.-citizens-purchasing-firearms-1

[the toss 0]

This will develop into a no win discussion because BOTH side have valid arguements. I will just say that to feel safe as a society you need to give up some of those "rights" and work together for the common good. At on stage you (Americans) had the "right " to drive on the left side of the road. That right was given up for the safety of the majority. It comes down to where you draw the line in your lost freedoms.

A perfect example is DNA databases. I understand that it would benefit law enforcement & prevent identity theft to a huge degree but I am dead against it.

[survtech 0]

I will just say that to feel safe as a society you need to give up some of those "rights" and work together for the common good.

I totally disagree! Giving up rights for security is one of the major problems confronting the U.S. today.

 

As Ben Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He said it many times in many ways, including ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

 

This is the legacy of the post-911 Patriot Act and it has many of us deeply concerned. Among the freedoms it illegally took away, as defined in the Bill of Rights, are:

 

Amendment IV, Freedom from unreasonable searches: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- (PA) The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

 

Amendment VI, Right to a speedy and public trial: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

- (PA) The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

 

Amendment I, Freedom of association: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

- (PA) To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

[ak357 0]

? for you

Will you need TSA at Airport if everybody on the plane has hand gun ?

[survtech 0]

? for you

Will you need TSA at Airport if everybody on the plane has hand gun ?

Yes. Although guns on airplanes are inherently dangerous, the likelihood that discharging a firearm once in an airplane's cabin causing a crash to the plane is actually quite remote. At worst, the bullet could damage flight systems, most of which have plenty of redundancy.

 

Explosives are a completely different animal. Eliminating the TSA increases the possibility that aircraft will be brought down by terrorists or just plain nut cases.

[Boogieman 1]

? for you

Will you need TSA at Airport if everybody on the plane has hand gun ?

I agree...however, we dont even need the TSA now..they failed at 95 percent of their tests and let explosives on board...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/

They failed to identify 73 airport employees with ties to terrorism..

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tsa-fails-identify-73-employees-terror-watch-lists-n371601

They are missing over 1600 TSA badges

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/blog/2015/05/26/hundreds-tsa-badges-missing-airports

This is only the incompetence that we know of...I bet there is much more...

What a freaking JOKE of an organization.

[the toss 0]

I will just say that to feel safe as a society you need to give up some of those "rights" and work together for the common good.

I totally disagree! Giving up rights for security is one of the major problems confronting the U.S. today.

 

As Ben Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He said it many times in many ways, including ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

 

This is the legacy of the post-911 Patriot Act and it has many of us deeply concerned. Among the freedoms it illegally took away, as defined in the Bill of Rights, are:

 

Amendment IV, Freedom from unreasonable searches: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- (PA) The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

 

Amendment VI, Right to a speedy and public trial: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

- (PA) The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

 

Amendment I, Freedom of association: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

- (PA) To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

 

So what happens when your "rights" infringe on someone elses "rights". But I agree with you that the American Govenment today is a frightening animal that is out of control. Modern history is littered with examples of Political interference in other countries affairs only to have it come back to bite them. Not only America but Britain , France , Israel etc. I think society needs to take back control of the political process - how ? I dont know.

[tube tech 1]

whiny control freaks live to inflict domination and control on others. they do because they can.

 

my generic response to things of this nature: "What would R. Lee Ermey say?"

[51cent 8]

"What would R. Lee Ermey say?"

HOORAH!