It's OK to use the word "chink".That does put a kink in the armor of the debate.
It's not racist in this context.
Or is it?
@Audie?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's OK to use the word "chink".That does put a kink in the armor of the debate.
A book about how the white "race" is superior to others. One that argues against racial equality. One that promotes social darwinism. To name a few.What constitutes a White Supremacist book in your mind?
No and the use of weapon was besides the point.
More the point is how some media outlets rushed to call it an "assault weapon" then retracted and started calling it "assault style" when it was pointed out it was long considered a war relic.
What does that have to do with the fact that he mentioned mixed people and that he quoted a know white supremacist? You're deflecting from the issue. Typical of fake liberals.
What does that have to do with the fact that he mentioned mixed people and that he quoted a know white supremacist? You're deflecting from the issue. Typical of fake liberals.
Obama's ethnicity and the ignored anger and hatred in a specific population in this country spearheaded the hatred we see.
The weapon used does not matter
The facts are that people able to defend themselves with firearms do on a regular basis. Every month the American Rifleman magazine records these incidents. My own daughter, trained by me, came home from her work late at night. she lives in a gated community, but the miscreant jumped the wall to get in. As he was coming toward her to attack her, she took her pistol out of her purse and told him if he continued, he was a dead man. He reversed course and ran to the wall and jumped over it. She is barely five feet tall and weighs a hundred pounds, without the gun she would have been robbed, raped, and maybe killed..I see a lot of people trying to push this "good guys with guns save the day" narrative but I don't see it working out in reality.
Let's say a bunch of other people at the festival were carrying guns and decided to whip them out and start trying to take down the shooter and save the day. That's what everybody is talking about right, "good guys with guns" taking out the bad guys with guns? So now you've got several people all shooting guns at a crowded festival full of people. How does that not increase the likelihood of more carnage and death occurring when you've now got even more bullets flying everywhere? Maybe the good guy with a gun could have taken out the bad guy with a gun, or distracted him, or whatever, but odds are, the good guy would have injured some other good guys at the crowded festival.
I do agree that the US definitely has a societal problem at the root of this. You're the only country in the free world that has these mass shootings on a regular basis.
I'm guessing they feel they can reference the AK since they both fire 7.62x39mm?It's odd how the media handle descriptions of guns.
I kept hearing it was an "AK47 style SKS".
They're very different.
An SK is not an assault rifle at all.
But things must be made more sensational.
it wasn't an AK, even though civilians can get AKs, albeit only semi-automatic varieties. It was an SKS, an older Russian rifle that fires the same rounds, I believe.I would like to know how he got an AK-47. I was under the impression that fully automatic guns are banned except if you have a Federal Firearms License, which costs thousands of dollars and needs a ton of paperwork. It's mostly members of the military that have them, as far as I know. So how did a 19 year old get an AK?
Yes, I'm sure that news types analyzed it that way.I'm guessing they feel they can reference the AK since they both fire 7.62x39mm?
Actually a real conservative, economic or political, wouldn't be supporting Trump based on his actions.I suspect no conservatives will be on board in channeling criticism against the divisive rhetoric of this so-called leader,
I tend to agree with this. A black man in the white house could not be comprehended nor tolerated.
But because he identifies as black, it's necessary to view him as a victim of racism.Obama won the presidency twice, the maximum amount of terms he could serve so obviously someone voted for him.
That's why a black man was elected twice to serve as President.I tend to agree with this. A black man in the white house could not be comprehended nor tolerated.
Of course that last part is crap. The collusion with Russia occurred under Obama and Hillary.And the Russian hacking pinpointed exactly how and where to reach this specific population. Trump was not the initial cause, he exploited it to his advantage.
Blacks aren't the only one's that play the victim card. The tragic part is when they throw that card they don't realize they're insulting their lineage and the history of blacks in America.But because he identifies as black, it's necessary to view him as a victim of racism.
Those who told you that were racists that were race baiting.I only disagreed with him on some policies because I'm racist....so I was told here.