Dallas...

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Bob? The 2nd amendment doesn't legalize murder you dumb ass.

you seem angry.

oh - and what about participating in the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from government tyranny? Wouldn't that justify murder according to the NRA and republicans?

The 2nd amendment simply give you the right to own a gun not to use it.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:you seem angry.

oh - and what about participating in the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from government tyranny? Wouldn't that justify murder according to the NRA and republicans?

The 2nd amendment simply give you the right to own a gun not to use it.

but America's ISIS and the republican party advocate for gun ownership to protect yourself from government tyranny.

Or are republicans now trying to walk back what they've been advocating??

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:"I need the 2nd Amendment and guns to protect me from government tyranny"....

"OMFG - BLACK PEOPLE ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE 2nd AMENDMENT AND USING GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM GOVERNMENT TYRANNY"!!

Bob? The 2nd amendment doesn't legalize murder you dumb ass.

Which brings me to this; what are the guns for, then?
Implicit in the "fighting tyranny" rhetoric is some level of willingness to break the law. However, who is to judge who the oppressor and who is the oppressed?

Is it cool to use guns to fight tyranny when the US Government declares Westboro Baptist a terrorist cell and makes the Baptist arm of Christianity illegal?

What about when they abscond with the family farm via eminent domain because the physical location is perfect for their new NSA/ anit-terrorism headquarters?

Or what about when Oklahoma State Troopers confiscate a family's last $4,000 via civil forfeiture because they happened to be carrying it in cash as they moved across country hoping for a fresh start?

Or maybe a TSA agent beats a terminally ill child bloody and the parent chooses to act-out.

Or maybe a group of black people are sick of seeing their brothers and sisters die as a result of police interactions .

No matter the circumstance of the conflict there will be a group who demonizes those who feel that they have no choice but to fight back. The NRA, however, championed this course of action for the last several years and now, when faced with its reality, they sit deafeningly silent on the matter.

Clarett's Folly wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Bob? The 2nd amendment doesn't legalize murder you dumb ass.

Which brings me to this; what are the guns for, then?
Implicit in the "fighting tyranny" rhetoric is some level of willingness to break the law. However, who is to judge who the oppressor and who is the oppressed?

Is it cool to use guns to fight tyranny when the US Government declares Westboro Baptist a terrorist cell and makes the Baptist arm of Christianity illegal?

What about when they abscond with the family farm via eminent domain because the physical location is perfect for their new NSA/ anit-terrorism headquarters?

Or what about when Oklahoma State Troopers confiscate a family's last $4,000 via civil forfeiture because they happened to be carrying it in cash as they moved across country hoping for a fresh start?

Or maybe a TSA agent beats a terminally ill child bloody and the parent chooses to act-out.

Or maybe a group of black people are sick of seeing their brothers and sisters die as a result of police interactions .

No matter the circumstance of the conflict there will be a group who demonizes those who feel that they have no choice but to fight back. The NRA, however, championed this course of action for the last several years and now, when faced with its reality, they sit deafeningly silent on the matter.

if you're trying to have a conversation with anti-government types who advocate for guns to fight government tyranny who are upset at people for using a gun to fight government tyranny, good luck.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

The 2nd amendment simply give you the right to own a gun not to use it.

but America's ISIS and the republican party advocate for gun ownership to protect yourself from government tyranny.

Or are republicans now trying to walk back what they've been advocating??

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I read that as having the right to own a firearm that can be used for lawful defense.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
but America's ISIS and the republican party advocate for gun ownership to protect yourself from government tyranny.

Or are republicans now trying to walk back what they've been advocating??

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I read that as having the right to own a firearm that can be used for lawful defense.    

Wayne LaPierre - CEO of America's ISIS - testifying before a Senate hearing:

"Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

looks like someone took him up on his offer.. it's too bad they're black.

Clarett's Folly wrote: The NRA, however, championed this course of action for the last several years and now, when faced with its reality, they sit deafeningly silent on the matter.

This is such a straw man, I've seen it every where.

They're silent because most times the early "facts" on shootings are not factual at all. So waiting for the facts to emerge makes sense. Last night there was a tweet being passed around on just this subject on how 2 "legal" concealed carriers were shot down and the NRA said nothing. That tweet was wrong, the man in LA was a convicted felon. He was barred from owning a gun much less carrying it concealed. Why the fuck would the NRA defend him?

The man in MN is a different story and the NRA hasn't been completely silent on it, they mentioned it on their podcast yesterday as very troubling. I know this not because I listen to the NRA's podcasts but because I read that in a story about the shooting. To say much more than that before the facts are in is reckless. Liberals are always willing to be reckless with the facts because they don't get held to account for their words like the NRA is.

And again I ask what were they "fighting back" against last night? It was simple murder. No one was shooting at that man, no one was oppressing him - he simply chose to kill innocent people. I'm stunned at the number of otherwise sane people that seem to be justifying his actions.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

"Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

looks like someone took him up on his offer.. it's too bad they're black.

Tell us again how the murderer last night was being tyrannized?

LooseGoose wrote:

Clarett's Folly wrote: The NRA, however, championed this course of action for the last several years and now, when faced with its reality, they sit deafeningly silent on the matter.

This is such a straw man, I've seen it every where.

They're silent because most times the early "facts" on shootings are not factual at all. So waiting for the facts to emerge makes sense. Last night there was a tweet being passed around on just this subject on how 2 "legal" concealed carriers were shot down and the NRA said nothing. That tweet was wrong, the man in LA was a convicted felon. He was barred from owning a gun much less carrying it concealed. Why the fuck would the NRA defend him?

The man in MN is a different story and the NRA hasn't been completely silent on it, they mentioned it on their podcast yesterday as very troubling. I know this not because I listen to the NRA's podcasts but because I read that in a story about the shooting. To say much more than that before the facts are in is reckless. Liberals are always willing to be reckless with the facts because they don't get held to account for their words like the NRA is.

And again I ask what were they "fighting back" against last night? It was simple murder. No one was shooting at that man, no one was oppressing him - he simply chose to kill innocent people. I'm stunned at the number of otherwise sane people that seem to be justifying his actions.

They're not justifying his actions because they don't believe that people need guns to protect themselves from tyranny. That's what other people believe, not them. They are pointing out hypocrisy.

I think it's a bit of a reach. Just explaining what they are thinking.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

This is such a straw man, I've seen it every where.

They're silent because most times the early "facts" on shootings are not factual at all. So waiting for the facts to emerge makes sense. Last night there was a tweet being passed around on just this subject on how 2 "legal" concealed carriers were shot down and the NRA said nothing. That tweet was wrong, the man in LA was a convicted felon. He was barred from owning a gun much less carrying it concealed. Why the fuck would the NRA defend him?

The man in MN is a different story and the NRA hasn't been completely silent on it, they mentioned it on their podcast yesterday as very troubling. I know this not because I listen to the NRA's podcasts but because I read that in a story about the shooting. To say much more than that before the facts are in is reckless. Liberals are always willing to be reckless with the facts because they don't get held to account for their words like the NRA is.

And again I ask what were they "fighting back" against last night? It was simple murder. No one was shooting at that man, no one was oppressing him - he simply chose to kill innocent people. I'm stunned at the number of otherwise sane people that seem to be justifying his actions.

They're not justifying his actions because they don't believe that people need guns to protect themselves from tyranny. That's what other people believe, not them. They are pointing out hypocrisy.

I think it's a bit of a reach. Just explaining what they are thinking.

And if that had been the case here I could "get" it.....but it's not. Typical invented shit. This guy was a cold blooded murderer not a patriot fighting tyranny and they're seemingly defending or at least justifying his actions. Amazing.

LooseGoose wrote:

Clarett's Folly wrote: The NRA, however, championed this course of action for the last several years and now, when faced with its reality, they sit deafeningly silent on the matter.

This is such a straw man, I've seen it every where.

They're silent because most times the early "facts" on shootings are not factual at all. So waiting for the facts to emerge makes sense. Last night there was a tweet being passed around on just this subject on how 2 "legal" concealed carriers were shot down and the NRA said nothing. That tweet was wrong, the man in LA was a convicted felon. He was barred from owning a gun much less carrying it concealed. Why the fuck would the NRA defend him?

The man in MN is a different story and the NRA hasn't been completely silent on it, they mentioned it on their podcast yesterday as very troubling. I know this not because I listen to the NRA's podcasts but because I read that in a story about the shooting. To say much more than that before the facts are in is reckless. Liberals are always willing to be reckless with the facts because they don't get held to account for their words like the NRA is.

And again I ask what were they "fighting back" against last night? It was simple murder. No one was shooting at that man, no one was oppressing him - he simply chose to kill innocent people. I'm stunned at the number of otherwise sane people that seem to be justifying his actions.

I'm not justifying it at all. It was cold blooded murder plain and simple. However, when the NRA gives people the tools and the talking points to fight oppression they lose the standing to be outraged when some nutjob legally buys a gun and fights what he perceives as oppression.

Well, they aren't defending or justifying. That's what I'm saying. If someone says "you don't need guns to protect yourself from tyranny" then they say "this guy was protecting himself from tyranny or thought he was" then they aren't justifying or defending because they don't believe in the justification. I guess they could have said "the guy thought he was protecting himself from tyranny and he was wrong and a nut job and he's an idiot for thinking that's what he's doing" but I was able to get he message fine without that part.

I know how you all feel about guns. Question is: How do you feel about police using a robot and a bomb to take out a suspect?

Jake from State Farm wrote:I know how you all feel about guns. Question is: How do you feel about police using a robot and a bomb to take out a suspect?

I think it's pretty justified in this case, assuming that they have the bomb as some sort of bomb diffusing thing that I don't fully understand but that's just what i heard. If they plan to continue using bombs on some regular basis then I think that's very bad.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:I know how you all feel about guns. Question is: How do you feel about police using a robot and a bomb to take out a suspect?

I think it's pretty justified in this case, assuming that they have the bomb as some sort of bomb diffusing thing that I don't fully understand but that's just what i heard. If they plan to continue using bombs on some regular basis then I think that's very bad.

Now that it worked here you can bet on every city working on getting a like device ready. Part of the new reality.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I think it's pretty justified in this case, assuming that they have the bomb as some sort of bomb diffusing thing that I don't fully understand but that's just what i heard. If they plan to continue using bombs on some regular basis then I think that's very bad.

Now that it worked here you can bet on every city working on getting a like device ready.   Part of the new reality.

Sure wouldn't surprise me. Supposedly the guy had a handgun and a rifle with him. Who knows if it was better to wait him out or blow him up? Cops are already authorized to use deadly force, this just seems a little extreme.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well, they aren't defending or justifying. That's what I'm saying. If someone says "you don't need guns to protect yourself from tyranny" then they say "this guy was protecting himself from tyranny or thought he was" then they aren't justifying or defending because they don't believe in the justification. I guess they could have said "the guy thought he was protecting himself from tyranny and he was wrong and a nut job and he's an idiot for thinking that's what he's doing" but I was able to get he message fine without that part.

So when AAA or an auto company encourages you to drive and see America they're at fault if you get drunk and kill 6 people? Same sort of stupid logic. You used something they touted in an illegal manner....

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I read that as having the right to own a firearm that can be used for lawful defense.    

Wayne LaPierre - CEO of America's ISIS - testifying before a Senate hearing:

"Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

looks like someone took him up on his offer.. it's too bad they're black.

Except the facts don't support this...

People shot and killed by police:

2015: 990...75% were not black
2016 to date: 509...75% were not black

If the tyrannical government is targeting blacks the facts do not show it.

Data of people shot and killed by police

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Well, they aren't defending or justifying. That's what I'm saying. If someone says "you don't need guns to protect yourself from tyranny" then they say "this guy was protecting himself from tyranny or thought he was" then they aren't justifying or defending because they don't believe in the justification. I guess they could have said "the guy thought he was protecting himself from tyranny and he was wrong and a nut job and he's an idiot for thinking that's what he's doing" but I was able to get he message fine without that part.

So when AAA or an auto company encourages you to drive and see America they're at fault if you get drunk and kill 6 people? Same sort of stupid logic. You used something they touted in an illegal manner....

I already told you that I don't necessarily agree with their line of arguing, just to be clear.... But, there will never be a legal way to "fight tyranny" by its very definition...

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Wayne LaPierre - CEO of America's ISIS - testifying before a Senate hearing:



looks like someone took him up on his offer.. it's too bad they're black.

Except the facts don't support this...

People shot and killed by police:

2015: 990...75% were not black
2016 to date: 509...75% were not black

If the tyrannical government is targeting blacks the facts do not show it.

Official data of people shot and killed by police

I don't think people take issue with the raw numbers, but rather the circumstances in which these black men are being shot and killed by police. I can't even remember the last time a white man was pinned on the ground and beaten/shot to death, yet it has happened to black men several times in recent memory.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Wayne LaPierre - CEO of America's ISIS - testifying before a Senate hearing:



looks like someone took him up on his offer.. it's too bad they're black.

Except the facts don't support this...

People shot and killed by police:

2015: 990...75% were not black
2016 to date: 509...75% were not black

If the tyrannical government is targeting blacks the facts do not show it.

Official data of people shot and killed by police

So 25% are black.... And the black population is 13% right? Get it now? The facts do show it.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I think it's pretty justified in this case, assuming that they have the bomb as some sort of bomb diffusing thing that I don't fully understand but that's just what i heard. If they plan to continue using bombs on some regular basis then I think that's very bad.

Now that it worked here you can bet on every city working on getting a like device ready.   Part of the new reality.

Sure wouldn't surprise me. Supposedly the guy had a handgun and a rifle with him. Who knows if it was better to wait him out or blow him up? Cops are already authorized to use deadly force, this just seems a little extreme.

Yeah, the potential slippery slope here is pretty scary. Hopefully, this was just something cobbled together by the bomb squad on scene that deserves a McGuyver award.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Wayne LaPierre - CEO of America's ISIS - testifying before a Senate hearing:



looks like someone took him up on his offer.. it's too bad they're black.

Except the facts don't support this...

People shot and killed by police:

2015: 990...75% were not black
2016 to date: 509...75% were not black

If the tyrannical government is targeting blacks the facts do not show it.

Official data of people shot and killed by police

So 25% are black.... And the black population is 13% right? Get it now? The facts do show it.

Some folks have trouble with "advanced" math.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:


Except the facts don't support this...

People shot and killed by police:

2015: 990...75% were not black
2016 to date: 509...75% were not black

If the tyrannical government is targeting blacks the facts do not show it.

Official data of people shot and killed by police

So 25% are black.... And the black population is 13% right? Get it now? The facts do show it.

Correct blacks make up only 13% of the population but remember they commit almost 50% of the murders. If the 911 calls are coming from black neighborhoods and involve black people committing violent crimes, then of course black people are more likely to be involved in violent confrontations with cops.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

So 25% are black.... And the black population is 13% right? Get it now? The facts do show it.

Correct blacks make up only 13% of the population but remember they commit almost 50% of the murders. If the 911 calls are coming from black neighborhoods and involve black people committing violent crimes, then of course black people are more likely to be involved in violent confrontations with cops.

So, slow down.... That whole thing where you said that "75% of the police shootings are not black people so clearly police aren't targeting black people" was bullshit then, right? Can you acknowledge that before we move on? We can get into the rest of it once you acknowledge that your first post that I replied to was an asinine oversimplification that you tried to pull over on college educated people. That might work on the Fox News message board, but not when you're talking to not simpletons.

Cops Wounded in Gunfights in Missouri, Georgia, and Tennessee

After the horror, come the copycats.

But it's all good since a white cop shot a felon with a gun in LA and a not white cop shot a probably innocent man in MN - so now it's ok to shoot cops everywhere. Well that and NRA.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

Correct blacks make up only 13% of the population but remember they commit almost 50% of the murders.  If the 911 calls are coming from black neighborhoods and involve black people committing violent crimes, then of course black people are more likely to be involved in violent confrontations with cops.

So, slow down.... That whole thing where you said that "75% of the police shootings are not black people so clearly police aren't targeting black people" was bullshit then, right? Can you acknowledge that before we move on? We can get into the rest of it once you acknowledge that your first post that I replied to was an asinine oversimplification that you tried to pull over on college educated people. That might work on the Fox News message board, but not when you're talking to not simpletons.

Blacks and Whites account for an almost equal # of the violent crimes committed.  So statistically speaking if there is basically equal interaction with police when it comes to violent situations that could turn deadly you would expect the number of blacks and whites killed by police to be roughly equal.  Or in your thinking blacks should be getting killed more.  That’s not the case. Whites are twice as likely to be killed by police.  How is that targeting blacks?

Latino and black cops are more likely to shoot at a black citizen than a white cop. Lol. Run away libs, run fast.

The_Dude wrote:Latino and black cops are more likely to shoot at a black citizen than a white cop. Lol. Run away libs, run fast.

You're a fucking idiot.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

So, slow down.... That whole thing where you said that "75% of the police shootings are not black people so clearly police aren't targeting black people" was bullshit then, right? Can you acknowledge that before we move on? We can get into the rest of it once you acknowledge that your first post that I replied to was an asinine oversimplification that you tried to pull over on college educated people. That might work on the Fox News message board, but not when you're talking to not simpletons.

Blacks and Whites account for an almost equal # of the violent crimes committed.  So statistically speaking if there is basically equal interaction with police when it comes to violent situations that could turn deadly you would expect the number of blacks and whites killed by police to be roughly equal.  Or in your thinking blacks should be getting killed more.  That’s not the case. Whites are twice as likely to be killed by police.  How is that targeting blacks?

So if the violent crimes are equal but whites are killed more then that means that whites are being targeted

Or, it means nothing. That's probably more accurate. Just admit that the 75% thing you quoted was a dishonest attempt to deceive and you didn't think we had taken a basic math class like the people you're used to interacting with, okay? Thx.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

Blacks and Whites account for an almost equal # of the violent crimes committed.  So statistically speaking if there is basically equal interaction with police when it comes to violent situations that could turn deadly you would expect the number of blacks and whites killed by police to be roughly equal.  Or in your thinking blacks should be getting killed more.  That’s not the case. Whites are twice as likely to be killed by police.  How is that targeting blacks?

So if the violent crimes are equal but whites are killed more then that means that whites are being targeted      

Or, it means nothing. That's probably more accurate. Just admit that the 75% thing you quoted was a dishonest attempt to deceive and you didn't think we had taken a basic math class like the people you're used to interacting with, okay? Thx.

But the 75 (non black)-25 (black)% statistic is correct as is the violent crimes committed at 55 (non black)-45 (black)%.  I will not apologize for facts.

This is the only board I post on. I accepted your friend request. Come to think of it your technically my only true friend here

CheesySpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

Blacks and Whites account for an almost equal # of the violent crimes committed.  So statistically speaking if there is basically equal interaction with police when it comes to violent situations that could turn deadly you would expect the number of blacks and whites killed by police to be roughly equal.  Or in your thinking blacks should be getting killed more.  That’s not the case. Whites are twice as likely to be killed by police.  How is that targeting blacks?

So if the violent crimes are equal but whites are killed more then that means that whites are being targeted      

Or, it means nothing. That's probably more accurate. Just admit that the 75% thing you quoted was a dishonest attempt to deceive and you didn't think we had taken a basic math class like the people you're used to interacting with, okay? Thx.

But the 75 (non black)-25 (black)% statistic is correct as is the violent crimes committed at 55 (non black)-45 (black)%.  I will not apologize for facts.

This is the only board I post on.  I accepted your friend request. Come to think of it your technically my only true friend here

Even Newt Fucking Gingrich gets it.

Newt Gingrich: 'It is more dangerous to be black in America'

Heat Miser wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

But the 75 (non black)-25 (black)% statistic is correct as is the violent crimes committed at 55 (non black)-45 (black)%.  I will not apologize for facts.

This is the only board I post on.  I accepted your friend request. Come to think of it your technically my only true friend here

Even Newt Fucking Gingrich gets it.

Newt Gingrich: 'It is more dangerous to be black in America'

Of course it's more dangerous...you want to talk truths...blacks men are dying at the hands of other black men 90+% of the time in record numbers and huge statistical disparities.  That is not the cops fault.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

But the 75 (non black)-25 (black)% statistic is correct as is the violent crimes committed at 55 (non black)-45 (black)%.  I will not apologize for facts.

This is the only board I post on.  I accepted your friend request. Come to think of it your technically my only true friend here

Even Newt Fucking Gingrich gets it.

Newt Gingrich: 'It is more dangerous to be black in America'

Of course it's more dangerous...you want to talk truths...blacks men are dying at the hands of other black men 90+% of the time in record numbers and huge statistical disparities.  That is not the cops fault.

"Get them to stop killing each other first, then we'll talk about getting the cops to stop killing them."

Heat Miser wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

Of course it's more dangerous...you want to talk truths...blacks men are dying at the hands of other black men 90+% of the time in record numbers and huge statistical disparities.  That is not the cops fault.

"Get them to stop killing each other first, then we'll talk about getting the cops to stop killing them."

It's about a 10-1 difference so yeah that would be where I would start as well if I wanted to make a difference for the black community.

CheesySpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

So if the violent crimes are equal but whites are killed more then that means that whites are being targeted      

Or, it means nothing. That's probably more accurate. Just admit that the 75% thing you quoted was a dishonest attempt to deceive and you didn't think we had taken a basic math class like the people you're used to interacting with, okay? Thx.

But the 75 (non black)-25 (black)% statistic is correct as is the violent crimes committed at 55 (non black)-45 (black)%.  I will not apologize for facts.

This is the only board I post on. I accepted your friend request. Come to think of it your technically my only true friend here

I'm glad we're BIFs :)

jimgeraghty ‏@jimgeraghty 3h3 hours ago
If Black Lives Matter feel they're being unfairly tied to actions of lunatic fringe, pro-lifers, gun owners and GOP know just how they feel.

CheesySpartan wrote:
It's about a 10-1 difference so yeah that would be where I would start as well if I wanted to make a difference for the black community.

Quit bringing facts into the debate, just tell us how you feel

I have yet to hear one news outlet (or our President), that all are so quick to jump on police shootings, before facts are available, label this as a hate crime, it there ever was a case of racist mass murder, this fits the bill, probably even more than that crazy fuck in Atlanta, Dylan Rooff, hell, the guy said he hated whites and wanted to kill white cops.
Can we all agree that racism cuts both ways? and either way it's nothing buy ugly.
Black Lives Matter, while all altruistic in its premise, has generally devolved, in practice, into hate speech and actions directed at whites. if Black Lives really mattered to them, they'd spend conspicuously more time on the thousands of blacks being killed by blacks.
My hope is the leaders of the movement will take a step back and, for the sake of the easily confused, come out with a statement that ALL lives matter and shooting innocent police, or other white people, does not somehow resolve injustices done to blacks, but I'm not holding my breath.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

But the 75 (non black)-25 (black)% statistic is correct as is the violent crimes committed at 55 (non black)-45 (black)%.  I will not apologize for facts.

This is the only board I post on. I accepted your friend request. Come to think of it your technically my only true friend here

I'm glad we're BIFs :)

Kisses