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.

 

NRA Members Annoyed By Silence On Philando Castile

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You've earned derp of the day. Congrats.




posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Fusion


Castile was reportedly a licensed gun owner. His disclosure to the officer that he had a gun in the car led the officer to shoot him, according to Castile’s girlfriend who made a Facebook Live video shortly after the shooting.

It’s exactly the sort of case that you might imagine would outrage the NRA, an organization dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But despite rushing to mourn the death of police in Dallas, the NRA was silent in the days after Castile’s death.


I find this very telling. If Castile had been white under the exact same circumstances, the aftermath would be very, very different. I wish I could say I was surprised by the lack of outrage by fetishists who scream 2nd every time a fly farts but I'm not, in fact I would have been surprised if there had been even a modicum of such.

Anyway, this is why I despise the NRA and yes I am pro-2nd. The NRA is a total scam, an arms lobby that knows exactly how to market to the majority of their membership. Looks like some didn't realize what they were joining though and now are wondering what is going on.

I hope people realize quickly that you don't have to join this farce of a rights advocacy group in order to send a message to DC that your rights aren't up for debate. Then again maybe we should encourage more infil... er joining up by Liberals and Leftists that support the 2nd. Then toss the bigots back to where they belong, infighting amongst KKK groups.






You might want to double check your facts. I read yesterday that he did NOT have a concealed carry permit. He is a convicted felon, so he has no business with a gun at all. Also, his girlfriend said they were pulled over for having a tail light out. That's a lie too. The cop radioed in that he was going to pull the car over because the driver matched the description of a person that robbed a store in the same neighborhood a few days before.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What an obedient citizen you are. Personally, I know that shooting an innocent person is wrong, but that's just how I was raised. And he was innocent. He had done nothing to deserve to be killed. Not his fault that the cop couldn't handle his job. This isn't about race. This is about police officers who aren't suited for their jobs.

Let's say the cop didn't carry a weapon and he was shot and killed by this man. Ok. He took the job and would be honored as a hero for serving the community. The criminal would be jailed for life and justice would be served. That's the worst case scenario in that situation. Even then, it's obvious that the worst case scenario with a cop being killed is better than giving an unsure cop an excuse to kill a citizen who really wasn't a threat. He was shot without a weapon in his hand nor did he make a move for the gun or give any signals that he was being threatening. How hard is this to understand? The cop freaked when the dude put his hands up. A lot of people get nervous around police. Is that simple fact not in the training manual? The cop screwed up. He should admit he was wrong and serve time. Our run to the gun answers don't work. It's so obvious.

Also, eyewitness testimony is given in a court of law. You're making things up. Please stop lying.
edit on 10-7-2016 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-7-2016 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Text

Text

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Erno86




Because the leaders of the present NRA, have never politically campaigned for pro-environmental bans...such a bans against shale oil and gas drilling on Bureau of Land Management public lands, most likely, in fear of retaliation from these big anti-environmental Republican fat cats in Congress.


Got a link I can peruse?


www.nraontherecord.org...


You've provided NOTHING to back up your assertions. NOTHING.

I ask for a link relevant to your assertions. You just went and got a link to an NRA hit piece site that describes nothing you said.

Thanks for playing, but this game is over.

(insert coins to continue)



A quote from Pat Wray-A life member of the NRA...

External content ---"The NRA's ability to take money from hunters and use it in ways that will ultimately ruin hunting constitutes one of the most dishonest public relations campaigns ever perpetrated on the American people," Wray writes. Wray goes on to describe politicians the organization has supported, like former Rep. Richard Pombo, Sen. Larry Craig, and President Bush, who have sold off public lands to private companies or removed protections for roadless areas."

As a member of the board, Wray says he would "require the organization to work with politicians who care about the environment, wildlife and wild lands in addition to their support of our Second Amendment Rights. The two are not mutually exclusive." External content

Link to quote:

www.utne.com...
edit on 10-7-2016 by Erno86 because: trying to get link to work

edit on 10-7-2016 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 10-7-2016 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

Thank you for providing some meat to your posts on this issue.

I will look into it further and get back to you.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Okeyd57

You read incorrectly. He did have a permit and had never been convicted of a felony.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Wonder why this guy "Castile" didn't have his ID out by the time the car stopped and the police walked over to the car ??

There was plenty of time.

Hmmm.



Are you flipping kidding? When you and have a nervous cop coming up on you while you're stopped on the road, and triply so if you're driving while black, the LAST thing you ever do is make movements with your hands outside his sight. That's a good way to get dropped on sight without the benefit of a conversation.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Okeyd57

You read incorrectly. He did have a permit and had never been convicted of a felony.


That source from theconservativetreehouse.com has been making its way around social media and people are picking it up and running with it as though it were true.


Also check your U2U inbox.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

How do you know he was innocent ... because one version of the story says so?

There are at least two:

1.) They were pulled over for a broken tail light. He said he had a permit, told the officer and reached for his wallet at which point the officer shot him.

2.) His car along with the people inside it matched the description for a robbery committed earlier which is why they were pulled over and he had the gun in his lap he went to reach toward his pocket at which point he was shot.

As the video evidence is only taken AFTER the shooting, we don't know yet which of the two stories is the truth.

That we know Castilo ended up getting shot is a given, but we don't yet know exactly what happened to lead up to it.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: xuenchen
Wonder why this guy "Castile" didn't have his ID out by the time the car stopped and the police walked over to the car ??

There was plenty of time.

Hmmm.



Are you flipping kidding? When you and have a nervous cop coming up on you while you're stopped on the road, and triply so if you're driving while black, the LAST thing you ever do is make movements with your hands outside his sight. That's a good way to get dropped on sight without the benefit of a conversation.



Lot of good it did him to do it his way eh.




posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Here's your statement from the National Rifle Association



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Yeah. I should have said he read incorrect information.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I was with it til he started talking about the Democratic Party keeping freed slaves from owning guns. That's literally propaganda just enough truth to it to not be called a lie. At the the time, the Democrats were the Conservative party. He's clearly an intelligent man so I won't buy that he is uninformed of that.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

The same party that supported Jim Crow gun control has NEVER stopped supporting gun control.

The early 20 century progressive movement gave us the zoning laws that created the hood we all know and love today.

Economic regulations keep a black entrepreneur from opening ANYTHING but a damned liquor store in his neighborhood, and it wasn't until desegregation allowed blacks real access to education that any real freedom came to the black man... but by the time the Jim Crow policies had been made illegal the damage to generations of black families had already been done.

But it's easier to blame the NRA because it has white people and only "token" minorities than it is to reverse 140 years of laws and regulations that keep the ghetto the ghetto.

It's so much easier still to talk about gun control than it is to talk about investing the HUGE budget of the Department of Education in building and rebuilding schools to meet 21st century economic demands.

So much easier to pick a boogeyman to ostracize and demonize than it is to face the real enemy.


edit on 10 7 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



The same party that supported Jim Crow gun control has NEVER stopped supporting gun control.


Absolutely not true, the Jim Crow Dems (The Dixiecrats) were Conservative. The Demo Party now is supposed to be Liberal. Though the Democrat Party certainly is not innocent when it comes to oppression.

edit on 7/10/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/10/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Absolutely not true.


You're gonna have to do better than that.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Dix·ie·crat
ˈdiksēˌkrat/
nounUSinformal
plural noun: Dixiecrats

any of the Southern Democrats who seceded from the party in 1948 in opposition to its policy of extending civil rights.



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

So.

We all know the Dixiecrats existed.


Why does the CURRENT democratic party continue the same policies today that they have for the last 140 years?



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

That all basically started post Civil War.


During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.


Live Science

Gun Control is different than banning people from owning guns based on their skin color. It's logic failure, not malice.
edit on 7/10/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Republicans set out to undo a lot of the war powers granted to the President during the civil war.

Of course democrats opposed that. What's changed? Most of the abolitionists were in the Republican Party. The Democratic Party were not abolistionists nor did they support the freeing of slaves. Post war Jim Crow laws became their way of winning the war. Then the progressive era came and along with KKK fanboy Woodrow Wilson they helped usher in a whole new era of systematic racism that has endured to this day.

Honestly none of that crap really matter now considering party politics is an exercise in curtailing rights from one half of the country until we're left with nothing.




top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join