It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicago gun buy back: "No Whites allowed". Not exactly.

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

WHITE FOLKS NOT WANTED: Mayor’s office racially profiles at Chicago gun buyback.


That was the message Guns Save Life took away from a foray up to the Windy City today to trade unwanted firearms in for $100 pre-paid credit cards.

Our experience felt surreal to say the least in this era when profiling – especially racial profiling – is a big no-no, especially in government service. It all began this morning as five Caucasian members of Guns Save Life waited surreptitiously and independently in line at a Chicago gun buyback location.

Out of the blue, my wife and I were told by a surly, middle-aged woman from the Mayor’s office that “we won’t be taking those today” in reference to a dozen plus long guns my wife and I brought.

In short, we watched first-hand as every Caucasian person who walked into the facility were curtly told their firearms would not be accepted, while African-American individuals with similar quantities and types of firearms were welcomed with open arms.

This is not an article from a news/media/propaganda outlet. Its simply someone's account of what happened.

Nor will it be carried by any news outlet because the claim here is that the Mayor's office was engaging in reverse racism.

So a White couple goes to a gun buy back program only to be turned away. Their claim is that not only were they turned away, but so was every other White person who tried to sell their guns to the State.

The only guns which were being accepted were from Blacks, allegedly.

They are claiming that this was some kind of anti-White bias, but I would disagree.

I do agree that this policy, if true, was racist. But not against Whites. Its BLATANTLY racist against Blacks.

The State was saying that theyre not worried about guns in the hands of White people.

Theyre only concerned about Black ownership of firearms presumably because they attribute most of the violence to Blacks.

If anything, Blacks should be pissed/offended over a blatantly racist liberal policy which implies that Black people (not Whites) are criminals and cant be trusted with firearms...

edit on 17-5-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Looks like they only want the money going to targeted groups !!!!




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Well, black on black and black on white crime in Chicago is astronomical....maybe they were trying to level the playing field. Or worse....



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I don't buy it

Plain and simple

Not one cellphone handy?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
They are claiming that this was some kind of anti-White bias, but I would disagree.
I do agree that this policy, if true, was racist. But not against Whites. Its BLATANTLY racist against Blacks.
The State was saying that theyre not worried about guns in the hands of White people.

Alternatively, it could be intended anti-white bias not properly thought through.
Anti-white in the short term ("we won't give them any money"), but unintentionally anti-black in the long term for the reasons you point out.
A more perfect scam would have another line at the back of the building where the recipients of the money would get their guns back.


edit on 17-5-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
I don't buy it

Plain and simple

Not one cellphone handy?



Many goverment offices like courthouses confiscate phones as you enter. I don't know if that's the case here. I couldn't tell if they were waiting inside or outside.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Well, if true, it's a form of segregation.

Who it negatively effects more is debatable.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Story smells of BS. But nice photoshopped image to go along with the click-baity headline, that's sure to fire up the intended audience.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
The guns are not the issue, who is getting the govt money is.

If blacks could only get the govt buy back funds, its in line with the flea market scams Obama set up so that minorities get their booze and dope money for food stamps.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere

WHITE FOLKS NOT WANTED: Mayor’s office racially profiles at Chicago gun buyback.


That was the message Guns Save Life took away from a foray up to the Windy City today to trade unwanted firearms in for $100 pre-paid credit cards.

Our experience felt surreal to say the least in this era when profiling – especially racial profiling – is a big no-no, especially in government service. It all began this morning as five Caucasian members of Guns Save Life waited surreptitiously and independently in line at a Chicago gun buyback location.

Out of the blue, my wife and I were told by a surly, middle-aged woman from the Mayor’s office that “we won’t be taking those today” in reference to a dozen plus long guns my wife and I brought.

In short, we watched first-hand as every Caucasian person who walked into the facility were curtly told their firearms would not be accepted, while African-American individuals with similar quantities and types of firearms were welcomed with open arms.

This is not an article from a news/media/propaganda outlet. Its simply someone's account of what happened.

Nor will it be carried by any news outlet because the claim here is that the Mayor's office was engaging in reverse racism.

So a White couple goes to a gun buy back program only to be turned away. Their claim is that not only were they turned away, but so was every other White person who tried to sell their guns to the State.

The only guns which were being accepted were from Blacks, allegedly.

They are claiming that this was some kind of anti-White bias, but I would disagree.

I do agree that this policy, if true, was racist. But not against Whites. Its BLATANTLY racist against Blacks.

The State was saying that theyre not worried about guns in the hands of White people.

Theyre only concerned about Black ownership of firearms presumably because they attribute most of the violence to Blacks.

If anything, Blacks should be pissed/offended over a blatantly racist liberal policy which implies that Black people (not Whites) are criminals and cant be trusted with firearms...


Firstly, there is no such thing as "reverse" racism. There is only racism. Secondly if this were true it would racism against non-whites yet again. They are trying to disarm only non-whites.

Edit: I see where you made a similar claim. My bad.
edit on 17-5-2016 by spav5 because: (no reason given)


Edit 2: When you use terms, such as reverse racism, you are implying that racism, by default, is inherent in white people(while not being in other "races"). It may appear, in this country, that all whites are racist, but I assure that they all are not.
edit on 17-5-2016 by spav5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Gun buybacks are crap as it is and have no effect on crime. No criminal is going to give away his gun, unless he has another. Or he will use the funds to get another gun illegally, in which he will still have money left over.

iTruthSeeker



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
yeah, I'm not buyin it either

even if they were turned away, they may have just been targeting handguns or something like that



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Gun buybacks are crap as it is and have no effect on crime. No criminal is going to give away his gun, unless he has another. Or he will use the funds to get another gun illegally, in which he will still have money left over.

iTruthSeeker


This is what I have never understood about these buybacks. I don't imagine many criminals take part in them.

They wouldn't be preying on those who are less fortunate, utilizing the economic distress of poorer lawful gun owners to disarm them, would they? I'm trying to understand the government's incentive.

That said, I am pretty skeptical about the veracity of the report in the OP but it would be quite disturbing for a few reasons were it true.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
yeah, I'm not buyin it either

even if they were turned away, they may have just been targeting handguns or something like that


According to the images of the weapons they tried to sell, a few handguns were turned away.

But yes, not sure I'm buying it either. I'd have to find some corroborating sources to try and get a better viewpoint, if they even exist.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Uhhh no they don't. They may ask you not to use them when court in session but they don't take them away.
Crazy how many want to just take this at face value. Thought race baiting was bad?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: onequestion
I don't buy it

Plain and simple

Not one cellphone handy?



Many goverment offices like courthouses confiscate phones as you enter. I don't know if that's the case here. I couldn't tell if they were waiting inside or outside.


Do they?

Ive been to court a lot never had my cellphone confiscated.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bluntone22

Uhhh no they don't. They may ask you not to use them when court in session but they don't take them away.
Crazy how many want to just take this at face value. Thought race baiting was bad?


Most certainly do. It's up to the judges in any given courthouse to set the policy in regards to cell phone usage but I can promise you with 100% certainty there are courts that either outright ban them from the building or will "allow" you to store it in a locker at security.

And then there are other courts that don't care one bit as long as you aren't taking pictures or video and don't have your ringer on.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Turning Away Scammers

Here's what really happened. They were identified as scammers and turned away. That's all.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Well they def don't take them in CA just cant use them in court.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Foundryman
Turning Away Scammers

Here's what really happened. They were identified as scammers and turned away. That's all.


LOL

So we have the master scam artist Mayor Rahm Emanuel on guard for scammers.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join