It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Black Panther. They hinted at him in Age of Ultron (his home country is the same one where Iron Man fought Hulk in Africa).

No, the Black Panther is the real Batman of the Marvel Universe. Ultra rich, has cool gadgets, cool vehicles (the quinjet, among other vehicles which could themselves topple all of the governments of the world), and his costume looks like Batman, including the colors black and yellow.

Issue #23 of the Black Panther run in the late '90s even takes this to its logical conclusion when they enter Nightmare's universe and they pay tribute to the likeness of Black Panther to Batman.

The Robin character is Black Panther's US attache, Everett Ross. Totally funny too, because the villain around this time is akin to the Joker and has his own tribute panels to the Joker.

These similarities are on purpose.

And for funsies, who is Logan Wayne?

Needs more black panthers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlw_Kp0By10

Agree that we disagree then.
I say statements about races are racist, since they are being divisionary by race. I say not all discrimination is discrimination against the target, but all discrimination is discrimination.
'Cry me a river' is not the same thing. If I heard him say 'little girls are all worthless bitches' but he really said 'some people think little girls are all worthless bitches, but they aren't' I would still think him a jerk for saying the offensive word to a little girl. I think that's closer to the topic. When a single word is the offensive remark, not the entire statement, context means less, and certainly not all.
When Mark Twain did it, yes it was racist, intentionally so, but also reflective of reality, so not wrong of him to portray racism as it existed.
As I said, most people tolerate a low level of racism, and intent also colors their response quite a bit. Because it's tolerable, even palatable, doesn't make a statement not racist.
Pryor was hilarious, and racist as shit! As I said, I think comedians get a 'pass' for being racist (EDIT: by which I mean SAYING racist jokes, not actually being racists) if they're funny enough. You are free to disagree, but you won't convince me his humor wasn't racist, not ever. That didn't make it not funny, or make him a bad person, it made him a comedian that used racism to expose and ridicule racism, as I see it. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you need him to be completely non-racist (a 1 on my earlier scale), then it's a big problem.
I don't need that from anyone, I just wish for a reasonable, non-hateful, non discriminatory (against people) level of racism from those around me (although even that can still be harmful, I know, but people are never perfect and I don't expect them to be).
Yes, I've heard people say that they would 'kill somebody', and didn't think they meant it. I tend to try and avoid those kinds of people, or at least correct them, as the unedited excessive anger is a sign of a lack of restraint. I wouldn't think them homicidal, anymore than I expect Pryor at a militant black panther rally, but I would think of them as lacking restraint and so possibly dangerous (at least somewhat unpredictable), just as I see Pryor as somewhat racist (ever hear him riff about honkeys? Hilarious...and SO racist!)

EDIT: BTW, Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman did a great episode about racism recently where they explained how even jokes between friends not meant or taken seriously can actually still tint how your subconscious sees race...making you (and those exposed) slightly subconsciously racist a little more each time you are exposed to negative portrayals, even when you know they aren't serious or realistic portrayals. It was a great and informative episode, I highly recommend it.

American cop thugs read Judge Dredd, American citizen thugs read Punisher. Why can't we all just read some Black Panther and get along?

Well, brace yourself, because there's a LOT of them still coming.

Marvel:
Fantastic Four (again... again)
Deadpool
Gambit
Doctor Strange
Black Panther
Inhumans
Captain Marvel

DC:
Suicide Squad
Wonder Woman
The Flash
Aquaman
Shazam


And all this... in the next 5 years.

As a comic book fan... yay!

A similar thing happened right after the Tet Offensive. They were sending a surge of soldiers to Vietnam to take back control and strangle the country. The Generals however said that they needed the troops back here for civil disorder control because they thought there was going to be a full blown uprising. So they got scared a kept a lot of troops here just in case it all kicked off.

Now this is interesting because it's further proof (which everyone denies) of how much of an effect Occupy Wall Street has had. People like to say that it didn't do anything but they're wrong, it tapped into something that's been just under the surface for decades. There's a lot of protest going on and a lot of people just sitting in wait basically. And with the FBI's huge coordinate crack down of Occupy all over the united states, it's no wonder they're gearing up for another showdown.

Now Chingalera is absolutely wrong, we won't win this war by going toe to toe with them with weaponry. We've already won, it's just a matter of everyone standing up and saying we're not gonna take it anymore. They have no power, the people are the power. So yeah there actually might be some serious violence in places but any real protest won't end up like it would in Turkey or even Spain. We'll be fine, they just want to scare some people. And if a bunch of psychopathic jerks decide to arm themselves, they'll be crushed and they'll make it easier for the state to claim the Defense bullshit. That is very hard to claim when you're stomping hippies, much easier when Black Panthers are carrying AK-47s in the streets.

And who exactly is piloting those aircraft against their own citizenry? Is it the "guvment"? You realize that isn't like a thing right? You aren't really painting a picture of a realistic rise of tyrannical regime. More likely they'd start it off by collecting everyone's weapons. Then they'd park ARs on every street corner. Most of these guys that are armed, or "prepping" are former servicemen themselves. Methinks you overestimate our military's willingness to fire on their own people.

Further, the issue more has to do with corrupt local enforcement, or fear of economic collapse (in which case, who knows who's piloting the death from the sky). Do you think the black panthers were completely unjustified in their show of force? Should they have allowed racist policing of their neighborhoods?

The historical example I've been thinking about is the Black Panthers. In the long run, MLK clearly did more for the plight of their people. However, in the immediate circumstance, it could be argued that they were legitimately defending themselves against oppression from law enforcement. I don't like violence, but to pretend there is no legitimacy to defense against tyranny by an armed populace ignores history. I'm a lefty, and I probably agree with most sensible proposals to mitigate the damage caused by guns. That said, "gun control" is a poorly defined term, and I'm hesitant to draft legislation immediately in the wake emotionally charged situations like this. It begs for unintended consequences and legislation that's grounded in emotion rather than empirics. Radical independence is, like it or not, an ingrained aspect of our culture. You can't, e.g., "take the guns" (ATF kicking down doors) without begging for a civil war. As your fellow unarmed citizen, I'd beg you not to go on that suicide mission. More reasonable measures, e.g. closing gun show loopholes, stricter CC licensure and possibly even bans on sales of new ARs are possible. However, I think it's important to grapple with the reality that there are already more guns out there than could ever be practically corralled.

Interesting Black Panther fact: A black panther is a black colour form of a large cat, be it a leopard, jaguar, tiger or possibly cougar.

Looks like the one in this clip is a leopard.

>> ^Hive13:

There is a lot of hate for cops in general these days, but I have to admit I was incredibly impressed by this officer. He was direct, reasonable and calm. He handled the situation perfectly and I wish we had more police officers like him. These douchebags were cruising for a fight and were being total asses to him, rattling off facts the got from a random google search.
Well done, Officer M. Nork.


Yes he was incredibly nice to the armed white guys. I wonder what kind of reception a 20 year old black kid would get. Probably shotgun to the chest and stories about how the Black Panthers are back.

No it is not raciest. Im just saying not all crimes between races are raciest in nature but the Left surly tries to make it so. Doing just causes more hostilities than needed.


You got Al Sharpton, NAACP, Jessie Jackson and the Black Panthers inciting race as the main cause of this young mans death. And no one know what really happened, except law enforcement, which are probably trying figuring it out.


>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I don't like stigmatizing anyone I try real hard not to do that sort of garbage.
.

>> ^NetRunner:

The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset. Many people have simply sworn loyalty to a team.

I don't have a problem with demanding an investigation and I do think something smells rotten when said investigation even needs to be demanded. It should have been automatic.

But there has been plenty of noise from both teams on this case that is downright despicable. Never mind for a moment that Spike Lee gave out the wrong address; Was he encouraging mobs of people to show up at Zimmerman's house and demand an investigation? If he was that's incredibly naive, at best. Even if he, somehow, had the best of intentions, there have been plenty of people out there calling for Zimmerman's head and publicizing his address only puts him in danger and complicates the investigation.

The other team is no less irresponsible. What I've been seeing a lot of in the last couple days is references to the attacks on Allen Coon. "Why isn't the left up in arms about this?" and "Why hasn't Obama given a speech about him?" are the major themes. They're trying to portray the Martin outrage as anti-white racism. And in a few cases they're right.

Both teams are immature and insane, they're both making proper justice that much harder to attain, and they both think they're the fucking heroes in this story rather than the enraged peanut gallery they really are.

The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.