Thursday, June 26, 2008

"Guns don't kill people"....


So now it's official, here in A-merry-ca we have a right to bear arms. Johnny get your gun, you never know when our government might turn against us, or god forbid, we might get outnumbered by those brown people.


In another close decision (5-4) the supremes basically told cities like D.C. and Philadelphia to get over their high murder rates and get their citizens in check. Guns don't kill people, people do. Yeah, but don't they need something to kill each other with? Sorry, I didn't exactly see where it said in the Second Amendment that we have a right to posses a firearm. I thought the Second Amendment was a limitation on the Federal government. Why not give states and local governments the right to regulate the possession of firearms in a way that they think is best for their communities? Hey I am with Justice Stevens on this one: "the supremes have basically enshrined the common law right of self defense", which is kind of scary.

Here in A-mery-ca we love our Second Amendment don't we? God apple pies and guns, that's the A-merry-can way. So what if every now and then one of us goes on a fucking rampage and decides to take out a bunch of our fellow citizens. Hey, we just have to do a better job at punishing these people, and making sure that they realize that if they use a fire arm to commit a despicable act, they are going to be punished. Oh, but wait, the latest crack pot, like so many before him, shot himself. Oh well, I guess he took care of that little punishment problem for us.

I keep hoping A-merry-cans will wake up, but sadly, I know we won't. I mean if someone can execute a schoolhouse full of little Amish children and it doesn't get a rise out of the sick fucks at the NRA, I don't know what will. I mean a bunch of niggers killing each other in the inner cities is fine. We all know those Negroes don't have anything better to do than take drugs and kill each other. But what about those good citizens [*wink wink*] in places like Kentucky and Virginia? Do they deserve to die? I don't know, call me crazy, but I bet if there were less guns there would be less killings.


Here in Killadelphia we are used to it. We have plenty guns on the streets . Our bangers and straw buyers love the NRA and their policies. Mo money mo money mo money. So a few hundred people die every year, what's a little murder among friends?

So congrats to you folks over at the NRA, I am sure you are feeling good about this latest victory. Let's just hope that if god forbid, one of you ever find yourselves staring down the barrel of a 380 in a shaking crack addict's hand, you will have a fast draw and good aim.




You will need both, or you will end up like the thousands of victims that you have forgotten.



85 comments:

A.F. said...

I never hear stories of people who would have died had they not had a handgun in the house with which to fend off the crazed killer who broke in. I constantly hear stories about these folks shooting themselves, family members, and assorted others (accidentally or otherwise) and about their children getting ahold of the guns. The Second Amendment does not say "handguns" and if it means we can own *any* arms, then our rights are already infringed. Am I off base?

Off topic: Field, I will be in Robin's Bay, Jamaica, late July, early August. I was there six years ago, and dearly loved the place. If somebody says that cliche "close your eyes and go to your happy place," it's there. At the time, it was entirely undeveloped, with only a campground as tourist lodging. I was surprised in rebooking at the same campground that it's now become a resort (!) and read further that there is a "struggle for Robin's Bay" in which big developers are moving in and evicting Rastafarian communities, etc (!!) The former campground is Strawberry Fields. Do you know about that area by chance?

heartsandflowers said...

Too many criminals already have access to weapons. I looked at the UK as being a symbol of how to enforce the law effectively without arming everyone in sight. There was a time when most of the police force did not carry a gun. I know things have deteriorated recently and some do carry guns now but could you imagine what it would be like to live in a society that remained largely gun free but still celebrated hunting as a refinement?

Whitney B. said...

Field,

Now, the Supremes really effed up on this one. First of all, hand guns should have been outlawed way back when, as what the Canadians and the English did. I don't know current statistics, based on global travel and all, things have probably escalated, but I would hazard to guess that hand gun murders are pretty low in the United Kingdoms. That being based on their laws that it is OK to own a fire arm (rifle or shotgun) for hunting.

I know that when my ex and I moved to Alaska, he had packed a hand gun in a very loaded truck full of stuff and I was stopped at the border because I looked like your average dope smoking hippie chick back then, but was driving a separate car and got everything dumped and checked and sweated bullets (no pun intended here) that they would pick on him next, which they didn't, so we skated. Had they decided to search his vehicle, we would probably be in the hoosgow to this date!

That's what we need in this country. But, how to get the guns from the crips and bloods? That is the question. Because, until we do that, what can we do?

Penns-kill-vania has the most effed up law in the world. I guess other states have it, too, but you can buy a gun-a-month here, like it's a club! That is BS and then some! The little Amish kids that were killed killed a spirit in me. This latest incident in KY is why we have to figure out a way to get guns off the streets.

One day we like the Supremes, the next day we want to..........

What it boils down to is how do we FIX this problem which has been a problem since the rise of the Mafias and gangsters of whatever stripe. They still have the fire power and the rest of us, who don't own hand guns, don't. So, do we form neighborhood militias or what?

I don't like weapons. And, I really don't like thinking about the fact that I have to protect myself from others with one. My current husband has two rifles and a shotgun, but he is a Cajun and uses them for snacks. I don't think he would even think about using them on folks.

Eegads, what is the answer here?

Whitney B. said...

a.f.,

Yikes about Robin's Bay!!! Probably some rich effing fat pig Shrubbabubbas don bought it and developed it up. Oh, I am so scared for this planet!

Whitney B. said...

Mr. Field,

Off topic, again:
Not to be annoying or anything, but what about your side bar on the draft? Are we going to go after Mr. Drip and Ms. Shots-n-beer on this or what?

Don't you think it's time we rise up and give a little shout out on this one?

Sincerely,
Whitney Brown

A.F. said...

P.S. The other day I was just trying to mail some letters and found the post office cordoned off by police tape. A man had gotten shot multiple times across the street and had run into the post office to get away from the gunman. The incident barely made the news.

Whitney B, I know you're right about the struggle for Robin's Bay.

Kat said...

I believe the The Supreme Court made the wrong decision. They should have let local cities make their own decisions on gun laws. Now, we are going to live with the consequences for several decades. Thousands of F-ed up people will be newly armed and accidents will happen. I live in New York City, people get into fights over parking space, Can you imagine if gun laws were overturned here as well? The NRA is already planning to challenge gun control laws in several big cities.

Whitney B. said...

a.f.,

Yeah, well, bidness as usual, mon. Even in de Islands. No more good reefer and no more freedom. Where is Marcus when we need 'im.

"But the wicked carried me away, capitivity, required from me a song...."

nyc/caribbean ragazza said...

Field I agree with you. This was a bad decision. Living in the states we are so used to gun violence some are desensitized to it.

Outside of the mafia, gun violence here is almost nonexistent. I don't know what the exact gun laws are here in Italy but I think they are similar to the UK, France etc.

If people want to hunt cool. I don't but I get that it is a sport. Can the NRA explain to me why anyone would need an AK-47? There are too many guns in our society. They are very easy to buy and cheap.

This is a problem.

R.J. said...

That's just freaking great. I'll just have to save up for a Ruger to save myself from getting a cap blasted in my ass.

blackwomenblowthetrumpet.blogspot.com said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
blackwomenblowthetrumpet.blogspot.com said...

Hey Field Negro!

A few years ago, I was in a conversation with a fellow minister who mentioned to me, "girl you need to get a gun if you are going to be a gansta preacher!" She was referring to my very late nights in the rough areas ministering to prostitutes and drug dealers. She had heard on the news that a prostitute was stabbed in the head four times on the corner of 4th Street...she called me, "girl, I heard 4th street and I knew that's where you chill with the gangbangers and the street walkers! I got scared!"

I thought about her conversation...asking me to carry a gun... I told her "what would happen if I had to USE THAT GUN?! what would happen if someone died because I used it to defend myself? the preacher KILLED someone on 4th street?? No...no way."

The problem is that the women ministers wind up going into those areas because the brothas who are ministers tend to be former church boys and pks who are just a teeny bit on the nerdy side (SMILE!!) ...nothing wrong with THAT...

They SEEM scared to confront gangstas....so the sistas have to band together and go it alone trying to preach Jesus to those who wouldn't step foot in a church if a C-note was laying in the doorway.

I remember rolling on the West Side of Chicago...in the section called "the bucket of blood"...on "The Ave" near Pulaski...so Chi-town readers know what's up. The police do not come...a bloody body was lying in an alley for three DAYS before homicide showed up to put it in the van!!

I honestly don't think that NO guns will reduce violence...there are some countries where MACHETES are the weapon of street warfare...if there were no guns...the truly violent would still use other means...I recall OJ found a quiet weapon to use.

The issue of crime and brutality is DEEPER than the choice of the weapon, Field.

Thanks for letting me blow my trumpet!
Lisa

Christopher said...

Hillary's "hardworking, white people," just can't get enough of their guns and rifles.

I saw the head of the NRA on cable get backed into a corner and admit the organization still isn't happy and won't be happy until grade school children are allowed to tot firearms to the classroom.

Obama gave a weasel statement when asked about the SCOTUS decision -- why are politicians so afraid to stand up to the gun nuts and their lobby?

field negro said...

Funny, isn't it a.f, how violence always seems to follow folks with guns.

And on Robins Bay you are right, it's a beautiful underdeveloped part of the Island. (St. Mary) And yes, the developers are trying to get their hands on it. Quite a few people are losing their land and fighting with the government. The people in the community want to make it a eco-tourist destination similar to the ones they have in places like Costa Rica. The developers want to build casinos and resorts. Guess who is going to win? No love for the Third World man.

"Obama gave a weasel statement when asked about the SCOTUS decision -- why are politicians so afraid to stand up to the gun nuts and their lobby?"

It's called votes my friend, it's called votes.

whitney b, I promise I will blog about the draft soon.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you have to be a gun nut to think that the DC ban on people having handguns in their home went too far.

It was bad law and should have been removed before it got to the Supreme Court.

This is not going to force anyone to buy a gun and from what I've read it doesn't say anything about licensing, background checks or other restrictions.

All it states is that the state can not prohibit law abiding citizens from keeping the means to protect themselves in their home.

If someone breaks into your home you ought to be able to defend yourself if you so choose.

Hathor said...

I think I heard that you could have a shotgun in your home in DC.

FN,

you will have a fast draw and good aim.

Thats what they think, that the law of the west will prevail. Why is the cowboy their heroes?

Anonymous said...

The NRA posts self-defense stories in their magazine, American Rifleman.

Shotguns are excellent for home defense. A 12-gauge will incapacitate any would-be robber. Of course, the aftermath is pretty gruesome. But I'll take that risk for my family.

I live in the white part of Pennsyltucky (everything except Philly) and have discovered that the gun owners get queasy at the thought of shooting humans. Unlike the urban trash that do. Literally every male has five or more guns. Yet the kill rate is low. It is a strong societal prohibition against shooting people. Even when the perps are in the house, most rural folks would prefer to call the police rather than shoot.

As far as 'going postal', most of the situations involved supervisors that had conducted years of harassment against the employee. Yes, it was actually studied and the findings were released in the 90s. And quickly buried. It was found that nearly every case of 'going postal' was directly attributable to the management refusing to stop or investigate the supervisors' actions.
VA Tech is an excellent case for refusing weapons to the mentally ill. Or, for providing paid services.

Mold

Constructive Feedback said...

Thank you Field-Negro, once again. Your site is the source of clear and concise leftist thought.

[quote]basically told cities like D.C. and Philadelphia to get over their high murder rates and get their citizens in check. Guns don't kill people, people do. Yeah, but don't they need something to kill each other with?[/quote]

Can we back up a bit so that I can take a part your argument?

The city of Washington DC cast a blanket over ALL residents saying "you have no right as a law abiding citizen to own a hand gun and any long guns that you do have must be functionally immobilized OR YOU ARE A CRIMINAL" in the eyes of the city for doing otherwise.

This was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL in this great decision that affirmed the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms for a law abiding and sane American.

Couple this 2nd Amendment trampling by DC and add to it the 4th Amendment trampling by the police roadblocks upon the Trinidad section of the city and it is clear that the Democratic government of DC has no respect for the US constitution and in particular the "inner city" area that DC Attorney General Nickels indicated needed such draconian methods to "keep the Negros under control" (he didn't say the last piece but it is clear that the function of his policies have that specific goal).

As a Black man you should be ashamed of yourself for both your lack of knowledge of HISTORY and for the fact that the target in the sight of the gun has changed.

This picture captures it all: http://libcom.org/files/nat_turner.jpg

In the balance of time in this country the Black community expressed our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms to defend ourselves from some racist who sought to have his way with our family as he sought to keep us in our place. At that time racist government authorities sought to snatch away the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS from Black people so that they and their Klan buddies could exercise their oppression against us in an unmolested manner....without the threat of being shot in the process.

Now, sadly so many young people have turned their guns from being pointed outside of the window in protection of their community and the people within it INWARDS INTO THE COMMUNITY. In their loss of consciousness they are wreaking mayhem upon the community. Sadly in YOUR loss of consciousness you have become the repressive agent who is seeking to snatch away the right LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who are terrorized among these thugs to own a gun to defend their life and property against these thugs WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN about gun laws.

I am happy for this ruling. It now forces certain leftists who targeted the "inanimate object" known as the gun as they executed their illogic of "OUR SONS ARE KILLING EACH OTHER WE MUST REMOVE THE INSTRUMENTS WHICH THEY USE TO FIRE PROJECTILES INTO ANOTHER BLACK MAN'S BODY AWAY FROM THEM". This policy was acted upon primarily because of the ability to fight an EXTERNAL FIGHT - against the gun dealers, the gun manufacturers and the legislators who opposed such bans because THEIR PEOPLE ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER and are instead killing deer. For the conscious within the communities which have the most gun violence this ruling should show that it is now time to shift focus on the HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE KILLING EACH OTHER RATHER THAN THE COLD PIECE OF STEEL THAT GETS WARMED UP AS THEY PLACE THEIR HANDS UPON IT, AIM AND THEN SHOOT THEIR BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

It is time, Field-Negro from you to depart from your Intellectual and Moral Abstract High Ground and make note that your intervention must be with the HUMAN BEINGS who have now departed from the CRADLE THAT YOUR HANDS HAVE ROCKED and consider the VALUES and CONSCIOUSNESS that you have instilled in them so that they are lead to cheapen the life of another man and thus kill him leaving him dead on the street.

*********
In an expanded note - I am watching you all.

Contrast this story against your bonfire the other day regarding the DEATH PENALTY.

Clearly THE STATE is a special force in your mind and you only know how to manage THE STATE to craft the environment that you desire. Despite having THE STATE put forth legal proceedings, insure that the impoverished has representation, and allowing for appeals were a different sent of eyes can review the past - YOU ARE AGAINST any ruling of death that comes from this system. You point to the few people who went through this process and were innocent of their charges.

This entire street homicide problem should serve as the "parallel universe" to your highly academical and abstract theories to which YOU HAVE NO ANSWER AND NO CONTROL OVER. Where as you MANAGE THE STATE you are equally inept at MANAGING THE INDIVIDUAL who is killing far more people than the STATE is doing and who doesn't afford a defense attorney, legal proceeding, appeals nor a dignified place to have the death sentence that he renders upon his VICTIM.

In your perversion the KILLER of one man becomes YOUR VICTIM as you protect him from THE STATE that you have controls over from putting him to death.

Some of you need to put down your masturbatory toys that stimulate your minds and instead realize that you have no ability to manage the entire other set of elements that RESIDE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. Your LIBERAL/LIBERTARIAN dogma FAILS to address what these INDIVIDUALS who are indoctrinated by you as they destroy life.

You are so inclined to make the EXTERNAL CHASE after some perpetually EXTERNAL adversary because the worse possible situation for you all to be in is ALONE IN A ROOM with YOUR OWN IDEOLOGY staring you in the face and thus having to MANAGE that which you sought UNBOUND LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FOR.

The question of "Of what BASIS are you driving toward" has never been in need of clarification than WITHIN YOU.

Those of you who are wise will take this Supreme Court ruling and use it as a need to TALK TO YOUR SONS WHO ARE KILLING OTHER PEOPLE'S SONS AND DAUGHTERS rather than making it a case of highly intellectualized CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY that does not apply on the streets of West Philly or Trinidad in DC. THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE LAW. The LAW must make them GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IT!!!

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]heartsandflowers said...Too many criminals already have access to weapons. [/quote]

HugsAndKisses:

Could you explain how THIS is relevant to the court case that was just decided upon?

The issue was SHOULD ALL DC RESIDENTS BE TREATED AS CRIMINALS? Should they have their right to bear arms SNATCHED AWAY by the government.....because too many CRIMINALS ARE KILLING EACH OTHER?

You should say "too many criminals have access to ILLEGAL GUNS". The bulk of the time they have obtained them in an illegal manner or they are not legally permitted to carry them because of a previous criminal record.

What this has to do with the UK - do tell because you've lost me.

In my view CRIMINALS have too much unchecked access to plate glass windows which they will break and STEAL private property from. They need to be checked.

What say you?

Weezie said...

Do the people shooting each other in Philly have licenses to carry? I know the people here in Baltimore shooting each other don't. They could give a crap about whether it is legal to carry a gun or not.

In the great scheme of things, it just doesn't matter to the people who shoot each other. They will continue to get in with shooting each other (and everyone else).

Jody said...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4M6SG8V-4&_user=10&_coverDate=02/28/2007&_rdoc=13&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d8dd062054d7b3a4778c82b32e4549fa

A new US study has revealed a relationship between high levels of gun ownership and high rates of homicide. States where the largest proportions of households contain guns have homicide rates 60% higher than states with lower prevalence of armed households. The difference is even more dramatic for firearm homicide (as opposed to homicide in general) – states with a high prevalence of household gun ownership have 114% higher rates of firearm homicide.

The study from the Harvard University School of Public Health analysed the number of households with firearms and the number of firearm homicides across all 50 US states.

Given that nearly two out of every three US homicide victims are killed with firearms, the study's findings are significant. The authors say the study does not prove causality, but conclude "our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States".

Anonymous said...

Field, why do you use the N-word? Is it for some sort of emphasis for your comment or what? I read your blog everyday, but I must admit I cringed this time when I saw that you'd used this word. If you don't mind, can you please explain this to me?

Keith's Space said...

I'm with you on that one Feild..
I'm a Philadelphian too and I know
first hand the effects of this crazy love of guns.

Dragon Horse said...

Field:

This is simple. You are wrong.

In DC, if people want a gun they buy it illegally on the street or get their man or girlfriend with no record to buy one in Virginia.

So these laws only punish law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves from thugs who don't obey the law anyway.

I'm almost certain 75-90% of the people killed by firearms in DC and Phili are convicted felons who should not have had one to begin with.

If I had to live in the ghetto you are damn straight i would want a gun, what the hell are you going to do when some thugs criminial threatens you and yours?

What about your wife? You are thinking like a white liberal who lives in a nice middle to uppermiddle class neighborhood who doesn't have to worry about these things most days, not like the people who live in the hood. Keep it real...

Anonymous said...

all you Philly folks complain about the availability of guns? Didn't some woman get gang raped and the neighbors heard her scream and didn't bother to call the police. Since our neighbors can't call 911 if someone needs help, we clearly need to arm ourselves

Christopher said...

So now we have the NRA announcing they're being a lawsuit against the city of Chicago to repeal its ban on handguns.

I wonder if Obama still thinks yesterday's SCOTUS ruling makes sense?

Sumpin' tells me this decision is going to open a big ole can of Holy shit, what have we done???

Jay said...

I don't have the right to a job.

I don't have the right to health insurance.

I don't even have the right to a reasonably priced college education.

But I do have the right to a gun.

Kriss1906 said...

This is brilliant. Reaffirm that just about anyone can have a hand gun on the same day the Dow drops 360 points and oil hits a new record. Yup. I see nothing wrong with people entering into economic depression and being given the legal right to buy firearms. Woo hoo!!! All we need is the thunder dome and we're set for another Mad Max movie.

Seriously though, I wouldn't have a problem with this if I thought most people that had guns were competent enough to use them. The "I want to protect myself and my family" argument is bullshit because most of those people that say that have never fired a gun, more less used one to protect themselves. That's like watching a Bruce Lee movie and saying "I know Kung Fu".

What needs to happen is, there needs to be a redefinition and refining of how they issue licenses for guns. There needs to be extensive training and periodic recertification. If you want a handgun for self defense then you should have to take a self defense gun course. Makes perfect sense. Of course this will never happen. The NRA will claim it's an attempt to limit a constitutional right.

Anonymous said...

Christopher... I'm sure Obama knows that ruling doesn't make sense. The guy is tryn to win the White House and that takes getting as many votes as possible.

I don't agree either with the SCOTUS rulings. But, I would rather Obama in the White House then McIsane.

Anonymous said...

Lets be honest here. It aint law abiding honest people that are killing each other like animals. Keeping the good people from getting guns wont stop one stupid young negro from killing another. How many kids in Killy were killed by law abiding family folk with legally registered handguns?

Many here want no guns in our society. Good idea....got any ideas how to do that? Its like taking the urine out of a public swimming pool. Those who obey the laws will give them up, those that dont, wont. How safer are we?

FIELD; The NRA also pushes law changes. One proposal (and I believe it is law in a few states) is that anybody who commits a crime with a gun gets 10 yrs min/mand THEN serves the time for the crime. If the gun discharges then its 20 yrs. Those are the lowlifes that should be in jail. Not the bro who sells a little weed or is behind on hid child support. What is your feeling on that knowing it will be young black men who step their fool foot in that trap. We need to free our hoods from these predators. They are killing us (figuratively and literally) they turn our hoods into ghettos and war zones.

What say you? Do we get tough or do we keep trying to understand them and turn them around with love?
BTW; Hows the love and understanding thing working?

Ella said...

I don't agree that violence follows folks with guns. My husband owns many guns and is violence free. My grandfather was also a gun owner, again, very not violent. I assume you have never shot a gun, or had a close personal relationships with gun owners, or known that they owned a gun. Before I lived with my husband I did not like guns and shared some of the same thoughts you have expressed, but over time I was educated about gun safety and feel that guns are not, by themselves the problem. It is not easy to get a gun, gun dealers are not giving them away. I have been in a gun store where the gun store owner overheard a customer talking about his past felony, the gun dealer promtly told him that he and his friend would not be able to purchase a gun. There will always be exceptions, but having the right to own a gun does not promote gun violence. It's about education, or the lack there of.

Anonymous said...

JAY;
You have the right to study and gain skill so YOU can GET a job. Hell, you have the right to open your own biz and take care of yourself.

You have the right to BUY health insurance. If you dont have the cash..see above.

You have the right to excel in school and EARN a scholarship. You have the right to get a student loan and most Community colleges and trade schools are indeed reasonably priced.

You have the right to BUY a gun if you meet the qualifications.

Having the right doesnt mean that somebody (read; govt) gives you it. Get off the pity wagon. It aint attractive. Nobody owes you shit.

Hathor said...

Everyone talks of crime in the home. If you look at our statistics, it looks like it more gun accidents in the home, than actual murder. You may get shot on your doorstep or in your doorway, through your window, a block away, stopped in your car at a stop light, coming out a corner store, asking for directions in your car, on the street, in a corner store, leaving a club, mistaken identity in public and all the other places that the field negro describes in his side bar; but hardly ever by a criminal entering your house. This is in Philly.

Anonymous said...

This "law abiding citizens not being able to protect themselves" is a bunch of crap. I live in the South in a crime-ridden city and a gun would really be the last weapon I use. Why? Because if I don't know where the threat is coming from, it's useless. If a man puts a knife to my back, how am I going to be able to get my gun out before he stabs me? Guns require a measure of time and focus to use properly unless you just want to point it at people all day. Then again, going around waving a gun, you'll be put in jail or get that one guy who has a gun too and will shoot you before you know it. Then there is also the willingness to take a life that I don't think most people have. People complain how a student carrying a gun to schools and universities will stop shootings, but at the same time do most students really have it in them to calm down while being shot at enough to kill the shooter? Like I said it's a bunch of crap from guys watching too many action movies. I say better time can be spent getting down to the source of illegal firearms than prompting citizens to arm themselves.

Kat said...

Why are gun nuts so crazy over the 2nd Amendment when the 4th Amendment is being gutted by this government. This nonsense about have a gun suddenly makes you more safer is utter BS. I hope to be nowhere near anyone with a gun. I live in a very safe neighborhood and I'm worried that being in the vicinity of any "gun owner" is dangerous. These so called gun owner can suddenly snap one day and kill me at work (Look at Kentucky) or at school (Look at Virginia Tech) because of some grudge. This obessive love of a weapon of death is disgusting. I guess a gun is sort of a phallic symbol to people.

Jay said...

anon, 1043 am:

No one here is on a pity wagon. But you certainly are on an angry wagon.

-Jay

A2daK said...

C'mon you guys. This is wild. Field Brotha, as an attorney, you surprise me. Are you really saying the Bill of Rights provides rights to the GOVERNMENT???

Each one of the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights) was meant to provide permanent rights to the people that they government could not take away. The 2nd Amendment was put there specifically to prevent gov't abuse. Clearly they didn't intend for the gov't to issue/distribute/regulate arms, as the this would prevent the whole "militia" principle that they specified clearly in the amendment.

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. If somebody was stabbed by a knife, do you blame the knife? Should we outlaw kitchen utensils? If somebody was killed by a person swinging a baseball bat, do we outlaw bats? What if I ran somebody over with my car? Should we all start walking???? What if I stabbed somebody in the eye with a pen? Will we all end up typing until somebody hits another dude over the head with his computer monitor?

Guns are simply an instrument and tool; similar to knives, forks, bats, cars, ropes etc.

This decision was a major victory for individual rights.

field negro said...

" Thank you Field-Negro, once again. Your site is the source of clear and concise leftist thought."

Thank you for those kind words!

"In your perversion the KILLER of one man becomes YOUR VICTIM as you protect him from THE STATE that you have controls over from putting him to death."

And in your perversion it's alright for the state to put an innocent human being to death. You said it here: "You point to the few people who went through this process and were innocent of their charges."

Sad!

ella, have you ever seen a dead person in the street with their brains halfway out of their head and flies buzzing around the blood oozing from their body? I have, so I think that gives me a close personal relationship with guns.

"What say you? Do we get tough or do we keep trying to understand them and turn them around with love?
BTW; Hows the love and understanding thing working?"

anon.10:35AM, how is that "get tough" thing working out for YOU?

"Why are gun nuts so crazy over the 2nd Amendment when the 4th Amendment is being gutted by this government."

Because this is A-merry-ca, we don't need to be protected from our government, we need to be protected from each other....

"What about your wife? You are thinking like a white liberal who lives in a nice middle to uppermiddle class neighborhood who doesn't have to worry about these things most days, not like the people who live in the hood. Keep it real..."

Mrs. Field takes all sorts of self defense classes, and she will kick your ass!

TLW said...

This is a major reason why I just can't get down with leftist ideology. I know this is cliche but it is absolutely true, guns do not kill people. Just because a person owns a gun does not mean they have this overwhelming urge to go kill people. The gun does not have some mystic mind control power. When you are talking about high crime rates in certain neighborhoods, it is not because people own guns. It is because of the poor conditions that neighborhood is in such as the problems with poverty, the poor educational infrastructure, dearth of economic opportunity, etc. Attack these CAUSES of problem instead of attacking the SYMPTOMS of the problem.

P.S. If you think that stricter laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people who already show no problem breaking the law in the first place, well...

jody said...

For all of you that said guns ownership does not increase likelyhood of gun violence, please go back up to my first post and read the research! From the Harvard School.. not exactly a fly-by-night group!
What we have in this country is a culture of violence. We glorify it, sanctify it and advocate it in our policies and popular culture. Ours is a history of violence. We teach history by war, omitting social movements for change.
We ignore that ALL change advancing us as a "civil society" has not been won by war... it has been won by people's social movements. That would be the lefties to you Un-Con Feed. From civil rights to women's rights, gay rights, expanding educational opportunities, farm workers, to labor rights... none was brought to you at the end of a gun. Those things that are the best in our society were advocated, agitated and struggled for by citizens banding together to struggle for change. Yet, this history, our history, is largely ignored until you get to friggin college, if you get to college!
Again, we are taught that violence is what has won the day.... and then we scratch our heads and wonder where the violence in our society... the one with the most people in prison, the most murders per capita... where does it all come from.
We need to think about what creates a culture of peace. We need to look at countries where this kind of violence is NOT happening and ask why? What are they doing? How have they created their society that does not foster violence? We need to stop thinkin that we are the best in the world and start being willing to adopt what is better in parts of the world that does not have this violence. There are plenty of examples to choose from... in fact MOST of the world that is not at war, even with the violence they do have, does not come close to what we have here.

Anonymous said...

Field;
I dont think we are "getting tough" at all when you have 28 yr olds who have been arrested 20+ times and are free on the streets. How more eloquently can a person say to society "Fuck your laws, I do what I do" by being arrested 10. 15, 20 times for the same thing?

Violent people should be in jail away from us. Neither Mrs. Field or anybody else should be driven to extreme lengths just to stay alive. Its silly that so many people feel they need to have a gun to protect themselves from these young thugs. Ive lived in Memphis and in Boston and you know as well as I do that certain neighborhoods ( ours, surprise) are paralyzed by fear of young black men with no regard for life. Theirs or ours. Those fears are VERY well founded. Many cant go out at night. Many have children who cant play in the playgrounds because young black men with guns hang there. Nobody can have nice things because the young thugs will take them. If you dare to not give it up easily, you will be killed. Dont pretend this is not happenning . You have written many articles on this.
Keeping guns from decent folk only makes the thugs more fearless. They will always get guns. Perhaps the discussion should focus on why our young people act in such a way. White kids, hispanic kids, asian kids all have the same access to guns and they dont kill like we kill. The problem aint guns Field. The problem lies in those who use them so recklessly.

Lola Gets said...

I posted about this on my blog last night, and Im getting ready to post about the O Man, cause he done pissd me off too!

Come check it out!

L

Anonymous said...

Field is wrong on this issue. Strict Gun control = controlling the population! Research Nazis Germany for example!
The lefties don't want blacks to own guns because they think we are all illresponsible gang bangers. Most gun control laws were started in the South as racist actions to prevent blacks from owning firearms. Self defense is a basic human right.

Woozie said...

I don't know about Killadelphia but I do know that D.C.'s gun ban existed for 40 years, and even through it violence was still unbelievable. Criminals still got their hands on guns easily. They're criminals; by nature they break the law.

The problem with people of any background killing eachother like they do in the U.S. is a problem with the culture, banning guns as shown does nothing to curb violence over the long term. Even if you were to somehow eliminate all firearms from the U.S., the crips and bloods would turn to stabbing eachother. Removing firearms does not remove the culture of violence making people kill.

And if you're going up against a crack addict you're gonna need more than quick aim. Have you ever tried to fight a crackhead? Those MFers don't stay down!

quakerjew said...

Jody, I agree w/your point on teaching history through wars. Guilty as charged, and I resolve to rethink my focus there.

The Harvard School of Public Health's study had to work their "multi-variant" magic to say that the outrageously high gun ownership rates in Bozeman, Montana have something to do with the zero murders that have occurred there this year, though. Doncha think?

field negro said...

"And if you're going up against a crack addict you're gonna need more than quick aim. Have you ever tried to fight a crackhead? Those MFers don't stay down!"

LOL! Now that's the woozie I know and love.

"Field, why do you use the N-word? Is it for some sort of emphasis for your comment or what? I read your blog everyday, but I must admit I cringed this time when I saw that you'd used this word.."

anon. 9:14AM, I cringe when I have to use it too :(

quakerjew, I get your point. But couldn't that just mean that there is very little poverty in Bo[zzzz]man Mt., and thus the logic would be less poverty less crime, and not more guns less crime?

I am just thinking out loud here so help me out.

rikyrah said...

FN,

As someone who has lived in an urban area her entire life except for when I went to school:

I agree with SCOTUS on this one.

I agree with this decision. I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I have long believed that Gun Control Laws, as written, only protect the criminals, and leave us law-abiding citizens up a creek. I have never owned a gun. It is a personal choice for me, but since I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I woke up one day and decided I DID want to own one, I don't believe I should be restricted by government. I am fully willing to go through any registration process that is set out, and see no problem with background checks and waiting periods.

Before you think that I'm a non-thinking NRA Member, I part company with the NRA, and quite frankly, get angry with them for not going for the middle. I don't believe that a lot of people who oppose guns want to literally take them from gun owners. I believe that a lot of them would just love to sit in a room with the gun owners from the rural and plains states and just ask them:

Why do you let the punks pimp you the way that they do?

I, for instance, don't believe it's a hardship to limit gun ownership to one gun a month. No sane person needs more than one a month. You a collector? You get to collect 12 a year.

I also believe gun shows should be very regulated. I believe it SHOULD be easy to trace a gun from the moment it rolls off the assembly line. And, if you're a law-abiding citizen, you should want that too.

Why let those who are shady pimp off of you by yelling 'Gun Rights'. It's not right. The decent gun owner needs to stand up to the sleaze. They need to detach themselves from the sleaze, understanding that compromise doesn't mean you'll be turning in your guns.

But, there isn't a lot of fuzziness in:

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.

Anonymous said...

How many brothas in Bozeman?

Whitney B. said...

Well Field,

I was wanting to razz you about the use of the N word, but Anonymous did that, thankfully. I didn't think it was PC to pound you on that being a white chick and all.

I think it is too late to do anything about hand guns. I mean, here we live in Penns-kill-vania (I live within two miles or less of the baddest shit in Philly), where we have a gun-a-month club. The gangsters, the crips and bloods, have everything in their hands. I am not going to go out and buy a hand gun, as I have major problems with that. However, I will just keep on stepping carefully amongst the gangsters where I live.

The Supremes really screwed up on this one. It should be an issue of States Rights'. However, DC ain't a State, so maybe it's time that we make them one.

Kat said...

Anon 2:04 said: Field is wrong on this issue. Strict Gun control = controlling the population.
**************

WRONG!!!!!
1. Detaining someone for long periods of time without a charge = controlling the population.
2. Tapping someone's phone and searching someone's house without a warrant = controlling the population.
3. Being called UNamerican for going against this illegal/immoral war in Iraq = controlling the population.
4. Having the media continuously report in lockstep with the Administration's pov without dissension = controlling the population.
5. Having a Supreme Court hand over the election to a man who did not WIN the pop. vote = controlling the population.

Having a fucking GUN are the least of your worries.

Whitney B. said...

Grannystandingfortruth,

Where are you on this one? You got the right juju and I want to know.

I got a new email address and I would like to hear from you personally.

leftwingredhead@yahoo.com

Perhaps before I have to move to Mississippi we can meet and have a bite and chat somewhere.

Thank you, Grannystandingfortruth. You remind me of my grandmother, but I bet we are probably close in age!

Fondly,
Whitney

Hathor said...

Why does everyone act if the criminals can get guns it is nothing we can do. My issue has aways been illegal guns, no 12 year old should be 2 degrees from getting an illegal gun. Some one is making a lot of money on them; I don't see it as black folks as having enough power to move cases of guns, especially since we get scrutinize more. I may be wrong, but I think we are allowed to traffic more dope than guns.

As some of the commenters have stated they see nothing wrong with restriction to control the distribution of guns. The strict 2nd Amendment folk want to buy a gun with less restriction that buying a pack of cigarettes.

A person may not be old enough to vote, buy a pack of cigarettes or drink. For some reason society doesn't think he is capable of making those kinds of decisions or needs to be protected; on the other hand when it comes to guns he is expected to be totally rational.

Yes people kill people: but technology makes it so easy. When that bullet is traveling more than 120 miles per hour; can't have second thoughts there. In fact in that second it can travel 1000 ft.

Anonymous@ 2:04
The way most people have written off supposedly potential perpetrators, in the future I can see a Nazi like solution of extermination pre- puberty or perhaps in uteri.

The Jaded Liberal said...

The 2nd amendment is the single most radically leftist statement in our Constitution.

In an age where habaes corpus is threatened and people languish in torture camps without legal recourse, the people need the means of self defense more than ever. The first (and forgotten) purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us against the GOVERNMENT.

We have seen firsthand how close crypto-fascists have come to destroying our Bill of Rights. I'm glad the supreme court came 5-4 on the side of habaes corpus, but you'll excuse me if I can't trust that it will always be so.

If the police start kicking down the doors of friends and family to detain them indefinitely without charges, you're damn right the population will have a need to take action. We need to keep effective weaponry so that this is always an option.

There's nothing right-wing about protecting your family. The division on this issue isn't right vs. left, it's rich vs. poor. Notice it's the same rich liberals and rich conservatives who live in nice, gated communities who have the police to protect them. For a lot of us, the police will only arrive to tag and bag the bodies. Fuck that.

Fuck the government, fuck the police, and fuck rich assholes who tell me I can't defend my family, and fuck you fake ass "liberals". The 2nd amendment is there to insure that the rest of the Bill of Rights can never be taken away, only given away.

RedLipstick said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061200778.html?sid=ST2008061202421

From the WaPo:

"The 11-year-old boy was shot in the wrist about 10:20 p.m. in the 1500 block of 45th Street NE, police said. About 10:50 p.m., three men were wounded in their legs in a drive-by shooting in the 600 block of Park Road NW, police said. Officers found one man on the scene, and a short time later, two other men hit in the shooting arrived at a hospital, police said. Investigators do not know of a motive."

"Then, just before midnight, a woman was shot in the back in the 5100 block of Fitch Street SE."

"The busy night continued at 12:05 a.m., when a man in his early 20s was wounded in a shoulder as he left a carryout in the 2100 block of Alabama Avenue SE, police said."

"At 1:15 a.m., officers raced to the 2700 block of Douglass Place SE and found a 19-year-old woman with a graze wound to her head. A group of gunmen attacked her and a man, authorities said. The couple ran into an apartment building seeking safety, but the barrage of gunfire pierced the outer walls, police said. Police found shell casings from two handguns and a shotgun in the apartment complex's parking lot."

"Shortly after 2 a.m., a victim walked into Greater Southeast Community Hospital with a gunshot wound in the back. The victim told D.C. police that he had been attacked at the Southern Avenue Metro station, in Prince George's County near the D.C. border."

All this violence took place in other parts of D.C. while the police were conducting a checkpoint program in the neighborhood of Trinidad which recently experienced alot of gun violence. And NONE of these folks were sitting in their living room when they got shot!

I come into D.C. sometimes on NY Ave near Trinidad and the area is always hot.

I don't see how the court decision will make a difference in D.C. or any other area. Woozie is right, the culture of violence is out of control. If these folks had SPOONS instead of GUNS they would still figure out how to draw blood!

Anonymous said...

Why is it that the D.C. Gun ban was fine for 30 years when D.C. was overwhelmingly Black, but now that it is starting to tip 50-50 Black-White, the D.C. Gun Ban is suddenly un-Constitutional? The gun laws in this country have ALWAYS been racist to some degree. The NRA was founded about the same time as the KKK (after Reconstruction) and both had the goal of protecting the rights of Whites to arm themselves while disarming Blacks. Gun ownership rights were stripped from Blacks while gun ownership rights were defended for everyone else. These Supreme Court Justices live in and around D.C. and are not oblivious to the demographic changes that have takne place over the past 10 years. D.C. Statehood will be coming soon--just a few more Whites will tip the scale and make the non-voting representative for D.C. in Congress completely un-COnstitutional!!! Taxation without representation cannot stand (for White people, anyway).

hennasplace said...

I could be wrong, but did the conservative judges all of the suddenly not to follow the usually constructive view when it comes to the Constitution. Doesn't the amendment state "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". It could be me, but the amendment speaks of the collective than an individual right.

The decision flawed because although owning a gun is not an absolute right, they left the door open for states to figure what restrictions to set in gun ownership.

I do not have a problem with gun ownership just as long as you have regulations. You need a license to drive a car, and you need a license to own a gun. I do not think people should buy handguns at a gun show with a criminal check, just call me silly. There is also the question about restrictions of the type of firearm a person owns.

Anonymous said...

The Bush family recently purchased nearly 100,000 acres somewhere in South America between the mountains and some fault lines that apparently won't be affected in case a crazy motherfucker presses the red button.

With all this shit going down, I'm scouting out land to build some bunkers. Black folks, think about alternative means of survival. Gas is up $142 + a barrel and I feel like some major shit is bout to go down. Ante up!
B.H.

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court ruling was no surprise. The gun lobby has been gaining strength for years. So I say stop fighting. I think black people should form gun clubs around the country and descend on shooting ranges en mass. Black folks should purchase guns, in quantity, and be really public about their ownership. And about their accuracy.

After a few years of this course, I GUARANTEE that white people will suddenly will develop a new attitude about our Second Amendment rights.

There is some historical precedent for this approach. Robert Williams wrote "Negroes With Guns," the account of a black community in Monroe, North Carolina which took up arms to defend itself in the early 1960's.

It'll make a person think.

szechuanpork said...

I guess it depends on where you live. No one in Arkansas would admit to not owning some kind of firearm. If they did, they would be pulled to the side and told what for. The supremes ruling on no knock raids was much more ominous for citizens than this. And that does affect AA's more than anyone else. If you put a slug barrel on a shotgun, you get a nice spread at short range. It can take out a wall and everything else.

jp said...

Best Post Ever. Sums it all up right. When the Supremes get their shot and and murdered like Eve Carson for example, and thousands of people of all races and backgrounds may they'll feel a little better. No other Western society tolerates its citizens shooting each other up the way we do.

quakerjew said...

Oh, I'm not saying more guns = less crime.
And I'm only picking on Bozeman b/c it was so easy to find a gun laden province with a zero murder rate. That Harvard study was so highly "refined" with it's multi-variant result finding techniques. Did no-one else read that and say, "that's ridiculous bullshit!"

@jadedliberal
Funny how the exact opposite of your view was reflected in the 5/4 vote. The dissenting opinion should give you pause - apply liberally.

Anon @4:30. You would be surprised to discover that the Af. Am. population of Bozeman is 38%

So would the people in Bozeman ;]
But that wasn't my point you race-baiting jack-off! Get out of my fucking canoe - I'll paddle it myself.
Seriously, though. I knew this Lakota hair stylist in Bozeman. She'll hook you up. Learned her technique from some eurotrash fella a while back.

A.F. said...

Field, Thanks for the information about Robin's Bay--the first place I ever breathed real clean air, also met some of the coolest people ever. It's a crying shame.

Does this post on guns have a much higher than usual occurrence of anonymous comments, or is it just my imagination?

The Angry Independent said...

Field,

You neo-liberals are driving me crazy with this stuff. Some of the most violent cities in the Country have gun bans, or severe restrictions on them. The bans have done nothing to stop the carnage...because...guess what... the criminals don't give a damn what kind of ban you put in place. They don't typically buy their guns through legitimate means... they aren't walking into Joe Blows gun shop, showing ID, and filling out paperwork, lol. They are getting their weapons on the streets. So who is most impacted by these restrictive gun laws? Law abiding citizens by in large.

These silly laws leave innocent law abiding citizens even more vulnerable to your thug buddies.

Another thing... you wrote this post in a racial context...as if there are no Black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Liberals, Independents, moderates, people of various religions & backgrounds who are pro gun. White folks aren't the only ones who enjoy their Constitutional Rights.

I wish your friends Mayor Fenty, Mayor Daley, and Chief Bratton would shut it up.

The Mayor of Philly could announce a ban tomorrow on all guns within the city limits...and your thug buddies would continue their reign of terror and carnage. The only difference would be that the law abiding citizens would be left more vulnerable....they wouldn't even be safe in their own homes.

Every man/woman has the right to protect themselves and their families within their own homes. Every man/woman/child has a right to feel safe in their own home.

Now on the flip side... I do support gun control... I believe in thorough background checks (including mental health), waiting periods, limits on quantity of guns & ammo, magazine limitations, bans on fully automatic rifles, limits on CCW, requirements for locking guns away in homes with children, requirements for safety training, etc. But the government should not tell a law abiding citizen who has been background checked and has gone through safety training that they can't have a gun. Meanwhile, the criminals are running wild.

How would you react if a couple of your thug friends from the streets of Philly decided to invade your home because they saw Mrs. Field one day and followed her to find her address so that they could come back later. They decide to get armed one evening and break in to do her harm... or to rob your house. How would you deal with that? Would you sit around quietly to observe all this or would you want to do something? Based on this idea of vulnerability, which you advocate, I am left believing that you would be o.k. with allowing it to happen.

Maybe you are one of those who thinks Philly's Finest will save you.

Good luck with that.

The Angry Independent said...

Keith Space wrote:

I'm with you on that one Feild..
I'm a Philadelphian too and I know
first hand the effects of this crazy love of guns.


The law abiding citizens aren't the ones causing mayhem in your city. The armed thugs are... ie.. people (often felons, gangmembers, teens, etc) who shouldn't be in possession of guns in the first place. And they would have them no matter what kind of ban is in place.

The Jaded Liberal said...

In despair at having no forum for talking about firearms without fraternizing with republicans, I went ahead and made one myself:

http://liberalgunforum.com

A place to talk about guns for everybody without a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker.

field negro said...

"How would you react if a couple of your thug friends from the streets of Philly decided to invade your home because they saw Mrs. Field one day and followed her to find her address so that they could come back later. They decide to get armed one evening and break in to do her harm... or to rob your house. How would you deal with that? Would you sit around quietly to observe all this or would you want to do something? Based on this idea of vulnerability, which you advocate, I am left believing that you would be o.k. with allowing it to happen."

Well let them try it and we will see. And that goes for everyone else who reads this blog and who considers themselves a field Hater. Get my address and try to break into my home and see where that gets you ;)

BTW, you people do kind of want to have it both ways, just like those of us who want sensible gun controls. But you can't have it both ways; are you with the NRA or not? You can't limit gun purchases to one a month or advocate for serious background checks, and encourage the banning certain assault weapons from coming into the country if you are pro NRA. The grown ups in this debate want all of that stuff, plus tougher laws for criminals who commit gun crimes. The NRA doesn't. "Slippery slope" they cry. So A.I. and company please stop parroting the wing nut NRA talking points and get a clue. No one thinks criminals should be running around the streets unchecked, but let's keep it real, I don't care how tough your laws are when it comes to gun crimes, you won't stop some kid on the street form arming himself. Period! I know, I am in court on a regular defending folks charged with gun crimes, so I think I have a unique perspective on this subject. I didn't want to go there, but you all forced my hand with your talking points that came to you from reading some conservative rag or watching FOX NEWS. The real world just doesn't work that way.

Geeez!

field negro said...

a.f. it's not your imagination.....NRA NRA NRA, they are everywhere :)

The Angry Independent said...

Come over to Mirror on America Field... I couldn't resist making a post in response to the foolishness you posted here.

Hathor said...

The home invasion just might be by police and be shot to death by police as Katheryn Johnson was exercising her right to self defense. This year in the neighborhood where I work; a pizza place was robbed and when the son of the owner tried to use a gun to defeat the theft, the police shot to death the owner's son. Couldn't tell the perpetrator from the victim. So I can't see dialing 911.

It would be interesting if we could have Justices that were concerned with justice, than clever interpretations of the constitution.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]
Sumpin' tells me this decision is going to open a big ole can of Holy shit, what have we done???[/quote]

Christopher:

Can I be honest with you? You are not that smart and thus you need for Field-Negro to push the delete button to keep MY VIEWS from entering your brain.

"WHAT HAVE WE DONE" should be directed at the KILLERS who DON'T GIVE A DAMN about the illegal guns they have and the ILLEGAL ACTIONS that they execute with them.

You all seem to be CLUELESS. The presence of a gun does not equate to an ILLEGAL ACTION taking place.

MURDER IS ILLEGAL and yet the presence of legal sanction against it has not stopped those who are inclined to ignore the law.

I think that this excellent Supreme Court ruling affords us all the opportunity to focus NOT ON the inanimate object known as THE GUN but on the CRIMINALS who use them in CRIMINAL WAYS.

Step up your game people. The hollowness of your arguments are coming back to bit you.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]The Jaded Liberal says.....In an age where habaes corpus is threatened and people languish in torture camps without legal recourse, the people need the means of self defense more than ever. The first (and forgotten) purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us against the GOVERNMENT.[/quote]:lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol::lol: :lol:


Field-Negro THANK YOU!!!

This is more fulfilling than going to Borders Books and purchasing my monthly copy of "International Socialist Review" (ISR Magazine) so that I can keep an eye on what my adversaries are up to.

Jaded Liberal -

Could you tell us which American citizens are in these TORTURE CAMPS or have their rights to habaes corpus threatened?

Then tell me which AMERICAN SOLDIER has their rights in this manner protected by the enemy of America? (I was going to say "OUR enemies" but I am not so sure that America's enemies ARE YOUR ENEMIES)

YOU ALL CRACK ME UP!!!
I read about the existence of the HARD LEFT but now I see.......its true.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]Some of the most violent cities in the Country have gun bans, or severe restrictions on them. The bans have done nothing to stop the carnage...because...guess what... the criminals don't give a damn what kind of ban you put in place.[/quote]

I have had many debates with Angry Independent over the years.

I have to give CREDIT to this BROTHER for speaking sense.

Angry - you have to understand the "Progressive-Fundamentalist" theories fall flat when it comes to people who DON'T GIVE A DAMN about what they think.

This is for the THUGS and the Islamic Fundamentalists as well.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]And in your perversion it's alright for the state to put an innocent human being to death. You said it here: "You point to the few people who went through this process and were innocent of their charges."[/quote]

Field-Negro:

I challenge you to a duel.

For every INNOCENTLY CONVICTED PERSON given a DEATH PENALTY

I will point to 5 KILLERS WHO ARE STILL WALKING THE STREETS with IMPUNITY. In many inner city communities of America (that are governed by left wing, Democratic policies) the HOMICIDE CLOSURE RATE is between a low of 28% and typically 47%......YOU MUST FEEL PROUD at this statistic.

All my life I have heard the old saying It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 INNOCENT man to be incarcerate

Field-Negro and his FELLOW LEFTISTS......you are now LIVING UNDER THIS VERY THEORY with the various INNER CITY KILLING FIELDS in America. DON'T YOU FEEL PROUD OF YOURSELVES?????

*****

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/national/main4164941.shtml

FBI Alarmed At Murder Rate Among Black Men
2007 Statistics Show Decline In Violent Crimes; Black Teen Murders On The Rise

[quote]"Violence is down among whites of all ages and both genders; it's up among black males, not black females," Fox said. "When you blend all the national numbers together you fail to see this divergence. There are many more whites in the population, so their decline can dwarf the increase among young black males."

Fox said black males are "feeling the impact of the economic decline and an increase in gangs and illegal gun markets. Gangs and youth crime are a growing problem despite these rosy statistics." [/quote]

When I was in college I didn't realize how much responsibility I had waiting for me as a RESPONSIBLE ADULT.
I now feel motivated that if I become a LIBERAL in the future I can reenter the cocoon that I was once in as a young person - not having to worry about the world around me BECAUSE MY OWN MIND was not attuned to the realities of what was happening around me.

field negro said...

"For every INNOCENTLY CONVICTED PERSON given a DEATH PENALTY

I will point to 5 KILLERS WHO ARE STILL WALKING THE STREETS with IMPUNITY"

That is a flat out lie! They are not on the street, they are doing life in prison. And if they are on the street, it's because they were found not guilty by a jury of their peers. Here is a news flash for you; I always like to go before a jury with a "sympathetic" client who is facing a tougher sentence, because they will almost always find him not guilty if they don't believe that the punishment fits the crime. This is what happens in the REAL world. Not the Internet cocoon in which you reside.

"Fox said black males are "feeling the impact of the economic ..."

That sentence tells me all I need to know about you: You get your news from FOX.

Honest to god people like you don't even exist in my world. You are like a cartoon character, and you are funny in a sick kind of way. But I enjoy watching people like you lose the debate for the hearts and minds of the masses in this country. And that's not surprising. Most people can tell a fraud when they see one.

Kit (Keep It Trill) said...

Field, I'm black and was born and raised in DC, aka Chocolate City. Worked as a social worker and lived there for a good part of my young adult life. We couldn't own a gun, and most people resented this. Thanks to racism, we also didn't and still don't have representation in Congress.

In the past decade, whites have been moving back to DC in droves. Formerly all black neighborhoods are now mixed and being gentrified. Like most blacks, they want to be able to protect their family from an intruder - and intruders usually have a gun purchased easily via the black market.

The City Council has was deaf to what their law-abiding black citizens have begged for decades. Now that upscale whites are a larger part of the population in rough areas, their wants have been respected. I fully expect that DC will soon be allowed to have a Congressman because their wants and needs are more respected. This time, at least, the law-abiding black community will benefit.

Sure, there will be incidents of violence with a legally purchased handgun - but to that I'd say in most cases the aggressor would have gotten one regardless.

I think your argument is seriously flawed for the simple reason that violent people have never had much trouble getting guns, but the people who need them the most to protect their homes and families have been left defenseless. Now they won't.

Whitney B. said...

Constructive Feedback,

Why do you keep making all of these continous comments instead of one long rant? What the eff is up with that?

Silly, is what I say.

field negro said...

"I think your argument is seriously flawed for the simple reason that violent people have never had much trouble getting guns, but the people who need them the most to protect their homes and families have been left defenseless. Now they won't."

How is my argument flawed? Make guns less available to everybody. Then the violent people will have to find another instrument to commit their crimes with.

"Constructive Feedback,

Why do you keep making all of these continous comments instead of one long rant? What the eff is up with that?"

He has to stop and do some research, and then get his FOX talking points :)

USpace said...

Hopefully, knowing that more homes may have guns, more raping and home-invading monkeys will cease in this behavior or be blown away as they well deserve. The world will be MUCH better with more of this scum dead.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you may not defend yourself

guns are for criminals
just hope police show in time

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
prosecute citizens

when they kill home invaders
threatening their families

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
women shouldn’t carry guns

their attackers and rapists
don’t deserve their brains blown out

.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Help Halt Terrorism Today!
.
USpace

:)
.

Anonymous said...

the second amendment WAS made to protect the american public from the CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.
and guns DON'T KILL PEOPLE.
people DO kill people.
If a person wanted to kill someone so badly,
they wouldn't HAVE to use a gun.
there were murderers before guns were invented.

Anonymous said...

Lol, niggers.

Lorraine said...

cheap wedding gowns
discount bridal gowns
China wedding dresses
discount designer wedding dresses
China wedding online store
plus size wedding dresses
cheap informal wedding dresses
junior bridesmaid dresses
cheap bridesmaid dresses
maternity bridesmaid dresses
discount flower girl gowns
cheap prom dresses
party dresses
evening dresses
mother of the bride dresses
special occasion dresses
cheap quinceanera dresses
hot red wedding dresses

Anonymous said...

Replica Handbags
Fake Handbags
Knockoff Handbags

Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags
Replica Gucci Handbags
Replica Chanel Handbags
Prada Handbags
Replica Fendi Handbags
Replica Dolce Gabbana Handbags
Replica Chloe Handbags
Replica Jimmy Choo Handbags
Replica Thomas Wylde Handbags
Replica MiuMiu Handbags

Replica Balenciaga Handbags
Replica Coach Handbags
Replica Lancel Handbags
Replica Hermes Handbags
Replica Marc Jacobs Handbags
Replica Anya Hindmarch Handbags
Replica YSL Handbags
Replica Mulberry Handbags
Replica Givenchy Handbags
Replica Valentino Handbags
Replica Versace Handbags
Replica Cartier Handbags
Replica Marni Handbags
Replica Bottega Veneta Handbags
Replica Loewe Handbags
Replica Kooba Handbags

Replica Bally Handbags
Replica Burberry Handbags
Replica Christian Dior Handbags
Replica Juicy Couture Handbags
Replica Ferragamo Handbags
Replica Celine Handbags

Anonymous said...

Replica Handbags
Fake Handbags
Knockoff Handbags

Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags
Replica Gucci Handbags
Replica Chanel Handbags
Prada Handbags
Replica Fendi Handbags
Replica Dolce Gabbana Handbags
Replica Chloe Handbags
Replica Jimmy Choo Handbags
Replica Thomas Wylde Handbags
Replica MiuMiu Handbags

Replica Balenciaga Handbags
Replica Coach Handbags
Replica Lancel Handbags
Replica Hermes Handbags
Replica Marc Jacobs Handbags
Replica Anya Hindmarch Handbags
Replica YSL Handbags
Replica Mulberry Handbags
Replica Givenchy Handbags
Replica Valentino Handbags
Replica Versace Handbags
Replica Cartier Handbags
Replica Marni Handbags
Replica Bottega Veneta Handbags
Replica Loewe Handbags
Replica Kooba Handbags

Replica Bally Handbags
Replica Burberry Handbags
Replica Christian Dior Handbags
Replica Juicy Couture Handbags
Replica Ferragamo Handbags
Replica Celine Handbags

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,

HONG said...

European Union leadersnike air max 90are preparing to meet in Brussels. They will appoint levis jeanstheir first full-time president and foreign affairsnike air max 95 high representative.
nike air max tn
The EU is diesel jeanspreparing to usher nike air riftin its first full-time leadernike shox r4under a rotating presidency system. Thenike air max 360new president's term will span two and a half years. nike shox nzThe president's main responsibilities puma mens shoesinclude presiding over EU summits puma shoesand representing the union on the world stagepuma speed. Leaders from nike shoesthe 27 EU member nations remain nike airdivided over which candidates to choose. Negotiations are expected nike air shoesto last into the night.
EU diplomats puma catsay the president is likely to be little known air max trainersoutside Europe mens nike air maxand a lightweight nike shoes air maxin global terms.
Janis Emmanouilidis, jeans shopSenior Policy Analysts, nike shoes shoxsaid, "It has become clear that the heads of state of governmentair shoesdon't want strong political figures -- especially nike shoe cartwhen it comes to the president puma futureof European Council. cheap puma"
Belgian sports shoesPrime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, nike air rifts has emerged as a front-runner for nike air rift trainerthe top job.
Also in the runningnike airis a Dutch Prime Minister, nike riftformer Latvian president, nike rift shoesand Luxembourg's Prime Ministercheap nike air riftsFormer British Prime Minister, bape shoesTony Blair, could be a surprise appointment. He has neither entered the election race, nor ruled himself out.