Mass shooting in a SC church
A historic black church. By media accounts of witnesses, it appears to be white racist. Of course, most things that come out after a mass shooting tend to be wrong.
And, like clockwork, the usual happens. Obama calls for more gun control. And he parrots the lie that this doesn’t happen in other advanced nations. Shockingly, the shooter broke state law, and federal law being an illegal user of drugs and all. And none of Obama’s gun control proposals would have stopped the shooting.
They’ve got to act fast before the blood gets cold. And it looks like the left may finally realize their dream of some crazed, racist right winger shooting some people.
June 18th, 2015 at 5:57 pm
And if you oppose his reactionary gun control, no doubt you’ll be labeled a racist.
June 18th, 2015 at 6:06 pm
They kept crying wolf. Course… the moral of “The Boy Who Cried” wolf is *not* Wolves don’t Exist
June 18th, 2015 at 11:21 pm
So why isn’t O-Retard outraged when blacks kill other blacks?
June 19th, 2015 at 12:45 am
South Carolina has very a reasonable permitting process. It’s a pity that nobody attending Bible study was carrying…
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Protect our God given Second Amendment rights!
June 19th, 2015 at 10:23 am
As in most cases, you are wrong. The WhitePower regalia in pictures of him is the “tell.” Isn’t that the word you guys like to use? Looks like he was a Stormfront regular too. It’s illegal to carry in a church in SC, BTW. K? Thx. Bai.
June 19th, 2015 at 10:27 am
The pastor of a church in South Carolina can give someone permission to carry in their church. That being said, the pastor of this church was anti-gun and as a state senator had an exclusively anti-gun voting record.
June 19th, 2015 at 10:44 am
Wrong about what? And I pointed out the church thing.
June 19th, 2015 at 11:37 am
Ironically many black people have followed their leftist supposed “leaders” and are anti-gun even though the history of gun control in the country , including the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott decision, and particularly the South, is racist.
June 19th, 2015 at 12:04 pm
Whenever I think of the word “tell”, I’m usually sitting at a poker table.
Well, that, and whenever I see some kid with an apple placed on the top of his head.
June 19th, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Do we need to go into the recorded discussions among Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison on the necessity of keeping armed slave patrols and the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment? Nope. Didn’t think so.
June 19th, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Yes, slaves were always disarmed and kept that way. It’s obvious who the new master wannabes are now…not being able to control their wicked imaginations when they see tragic blood.
June 19th, 2015 at 4:24 pm
I don’t think “tell” means what you think it means.
June 19th, 2015 at 4:57 pm
So we have agreement that the 2nd Amendment was instituted to ensure slave rebellions could be suppressed and has nothing to do with governmental tyranny as it was to be used (and was used) as a form of state tyranny AND we have the classic “clip” crowd wanting to argue over words. Just about par for the course….
June 19th, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Hey Metulj, James Madison lays out the reasoning for the Second Amendment in Federalist No. 46. It isn’t the preservation of slavery. In the Virginia Declaration of rights, written by Mason, Section 13 conveys the right of the people to own firearms. No mention of slavery. Nowhere have I seen any writing of Patrick Henry express that the right to bear arms was intended to support slavery. All three of these men supported the right to bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny, not as a means to perpetuate slavery. Two of them, Mason and Madison, were by the standards of their day anti-slavery, Mason especially. Stop peddling your disingenuous bullshit.
June 19th, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Quote: “So we have agreement that the 2nd Amendment was instituted to ensure slave rebellions could be suppressed and has nothing to do with governmental tyranny as it was to be used (and was used) as a form of state tyranny AND we have the classic “clip” crowd wanting to argue over words.”
No agreement whatsoever. Even the Department of Justice defined “Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right”.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf
I guess I could blab the conclusion of the DOJ’s 105-page document for the poor sap, but dammit, some ill-mentored and historically challenged people just need to read for themselves about the Founders of America, their visions and their intentions.
[As an aside, I have to add that in my many moons of age I’ve heard and read a lot of twisted bullshit and outright lies about the 2A. But I’ve never, ever heard one leftist/prog extremist say that the 2A in the Bill of Rights was to “ensure slave rebellions could be suppressed”! LOL!!!]
June 19th, 2015 at 5:51 pm
No, if you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights were “declarative” of the rights of the people and “restrictive” of government “abuses or usurpations” beyond its “delegated powers”. The 2nd Amendment references “militia” in Article I, Section 8.15-16 by which the government only was given delegated power “for governing such part of them (militia) as may be called into the service and EMPLOYED by the United States.” Otherwise the people are free and have the right to be armed. Government criminals evince to usurp and abuse their delegated powers to take rights from the people to reduce us to slavery as is clear down through history.
June 19th, 2015 at 6:00 pm
The 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott decision kept black people as non-persons as Chief Justice Taney opined, lest “they be able to speak publicly and be able to go armed everywhere they went” correctly applying the DECLARED right of the people in the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but arbitrarily denying them to be people.
June 19th, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Soo… if the 2nd Amendment is all about keeping minorities down….
Then what about those Jim Crow era gun control laws that kept minorities disarmed?
June 19th, 2015 at 9:30 pm
Perhaps the voices in your head are agreeing with you, but I don’t see a whole lot of agreement anywhere else.
Including people who have actually bothered looking at history and the relevant documents and know you are full of shit.
*shrug*
June 19th, 2015 at 9:47 pm
As wackjobs are brainwashed to do, this wackjob wants to do his jihad and take out maximum victims in minimum time. So he chooses a place where many gentle people come together to do and learn gentle things, and are precluded by law from defending against him. He does not choose the downtown street corners where many not gentle people come together to do not gentle things, because in all his wackjobery he still knows those not gentle folks don’t give a rat’s ass about being precluded by law from any damn thing, and will likely do some not gentle things to him before he finishes his jihad. Like most jihadists, he’s just a cowardly worm.
June 19th, 2015 at 10:26 pm
I hear now the nutjob reloaded FIVE TIMES while shooting. Yet nobody tried to tackle him. And being a ‘gun free’ zone, no body had a guy to take him out.
June 19th, 2015 at 10:46 pm
Almost as evil as this crazed, criminal perp are those who impose defenselessness (gun free zones, restricting or denying the right to be armed) on others by law, thus aiding and abetting this murderer and others. This they enforce by hired guns who also surround and protect them— “wickedness in high places”.
June 20th, 2015 at 12:22 am
And comment#23
Guy was is an asshole and will burn in hell for this horrible act.
June 20th, 2015 at 12:35 am
I’ve never heard the argument made before that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep slaves disarmed. I don’t believe a word of it; there is plenty of written testimony from the Founding Fathers on the importance of an armed citizenry for defending against tyranny, with no mention of arms vis-a-vis slavery.
On the other hand, there’s also plenty of evidence that gun control laws were originally written to keep guns out of the hands of African Americans. So if you’re looking for gun-related racism, I’d suggest that you start there.
June 20th, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Please read this
http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Patrols-Violence-Carolinas-Historical/dp/0674012348/
Goes into great detail.
Patrick Henry debating (and trying to defeat the Constitution): Henry answered this question as follows:
“Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia.”
Subsequently the 2nd Amendment appeared with “states” as the areal frame.
June 20th, 2015 at 4:47 pm
@ Crawler, there are two guys in particular, Carl Bogus and Thom Hartmann that give us the slave insurrection theories about the 2A. Not really familiar with Bogus but did some research on Hartmann’s claims. He quoted a letter between a couple of the founders as proof of his theory. After checking it out myself he left out mentions of coastal pirate attacks and Indian attacks as well. Not sure how he missed those parts…unless he ignored evidence that would contradict his theory. We know that’s never been done before by opponents of an individual rights interpretation…
June 20th, 2015 at 5:25 pm
Interesting how Metulj utterly ignores the idea of the Jim Crow gun laws count as racist too.
And even if the 2nd was about keeping slaves from revolting…
Okay, well there aren’t slaves in the US *now*. So is the idea that citizens, regardless of color, have a right to be armed is still racist somehow?
I mean is Met’s argument really: “Laws saying blacks can own guns are racist! But laws that allow the cops to disarm blacks ain’t so bad!”
June 20th, 2015 at 5:49 pm
Fortunately, the whole “the Second Amendment was ratified to protect slavery” of so much revisionist bullshit, as I said, and has been known as such for years now: http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/ and http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/01/28/the-mis-education-of-danny-glover/ .
The Jack, Met is simply employing standard Alinsky tactics of accusing us of doing exactly what the programs he supports actually do. It’s so cute how he thinks it’s effective.
June 20th, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Hey Metulj, how in hell does what you presented prove the 2A was written to protect slavery? It doesn’t. You also seem to fall for the BS that The 2A protects militias. It doesn’t. The operative clause conveys the right to the people, not militias or the states. And seeing as Mason and Henry were antifederalists, wouldn’t we be looking at what the man Madison, who actually wrote the thing has to say? He clearly set out the purpose of the 2A as a way for people to throw off an oppressive government in federalist no. 46.
June 20th, 2015 at 6:51 pm
Actually NjGunGuy, militia is an armed citizenry in the historical context and according to the wording of the Constitution.The sentence of the 2nd Amendment, which begins with a subordinate clause, only makes grammatical sense with militia referencing the people’s right to keep and bear arms in the independent clause. That understanding is supported by Article I, section 8.16 in which power is delegated from the States and the People “for governing such part of them ( militia) as may be called into service and EMPLOYED by the United States.” George Mason’s rhetorical question also verifies this: ” I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Quotations from the founders are replete with the understanding that militia refers to a free people bring armed which is separate from powers delegated to States and the U.S. to call into service and employ them as an organized force.
June 20th, 2015 at 9:40 pm
Metulj:
An interesting quote from Patrick Henry, if accurate. But I don’t see how it has any bearing on the 2nd Amendment. (Nor can Patrick Henry be called any sort of spokesman for the U.S. Government.)
Your quote says that only Congress can call out the militia, and that the militia would be needed to suppress a slave insurrection. Are you therefore claiming that the purpose of a militia, as described in the Constitution, is to suppress slave revolts? (I don’t think even Patrick Henry would have supported that… and, again, he did NOT speak for the federal government.)
Nor does this have any bearing on the 2nd Amendment, unless you’re claiming that the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of militias to keep and bear arms. But that’s not what it says, and not what it means.
Robb Allen illustrated this a while back with an interesting grammatical exercise:
“A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
Who has the right to food — “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast”? Both grammatically and logically, only one interpretation makes sense here — the same interpretation that, applied to the 2nd Amendment, makes it clear that it is “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
June 20th, 2015 at 10:29 pm
“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of arms.” –Aristotle
“The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” — James Burgh 1774
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
“Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is despotic; and any people that would submit to it deserve to be slaves.”– Stephen F. Austin, 1835
“Notwithstanding the provision in the Constitution of the United States, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the black man has never had the right to either keep or bear arms.”– Frederick Douglas, speech to the American Anti-Slavery Society, May 10, 1865 (until the 1857 Dred Scott decision keeping black people as non-persons and slaves was overturned by the enactment of the 13th and 14th Amendments)
June 21st, 2015 at 12:36 am
Ron, I understand and knew what you were trying to point out to me in your reply to my comment, just hard to get complete thoughts across in a comprehensible way typing on mobile. What I meant was even though it mentions militias what mattrs is the right goes to the poeple, not anyhting run or maintained by a state govt.
June 21st, 2015 at 7:41 am
Dammit, we’re supposed to be knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, tobacco spitting bubbas unable to form a grammatically correct sentence! Don’t you know the antis win automatically in the logical argument? And here all you go referring to history and using big words and logic and stuff, and you made him look bad.(/sarc)for those of our intellectual superiors that didn’t catch it.
June 21st, 2015 at 10:15 am
Yes, NjGunGuy, I’m with ya. I was just reiterating the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment being the ultimate bulwark against slavery and tyranny. Seizing on opportunistic tragedy, it’s reactionary paranoid attackers make their repressive intentions obvious.
Mr. Evilwrench, LOL, as “Stooge” Curly would say, “I resemble that remark!”