AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Just cos it is legal to carry concealed weapons doesn't mean it is legal to shoot anyone for any reason. If someone steals that $100 bill from you in the street and you shoot them dead you will be in a whole world of #######.

You are right about the $100 but if someone stole the $100 and the theif was shot he would likely be DEAD and get little comfort from the world of sh*t the shooter got into, so they DON'T DO IT! I would not shoot someone over $100, or $100,000 but they don't have to know that. All they need to know is that ALL people are allowed the MEANS to shoot them.

Case in point...Vermont crime rate.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[scotinmass 588]

I don't know, why don't you tell me and back it up with data, OK?

The tragedy happened in Colorado, not Vermont. Vermonters have always had guns and always had low crime. Colorado does not allow everyone to carry guns. I have proven my case.

Your turn.

Did I say that? Please post where I said it is legal to shoot anyone for any reason.

Back to your argument.

I have to agree with you, Good thing you are in California and I am NOT.

NH has a lower murder rate than Vermont and they need a permit to carry concealed weapons.

You never said it was legal to shoot someone but you say that you feel safe because you carry a gun and can shoot anyone who threatens you. I agree you can shoot anyone but you might spend a long time in jail if you do.

[scotinmass 588]

Anyway this is completely so I'm not discussing it anymore.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Anyway this is completely so I'm not discussing it anymore.

I shall allow you to retreat. Thank you for playing.

I support ALL rights regardless of race, I believe that black people also have the right to carry concealed fireams and if we allowed it in all areas, all areas could enjoy what we do here. Gun control has long been related to race control and I abhor either one.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I do not believe programs that oppress people by making them dependent and controlled by government would be described as "discriminating against whites" If you are saying that blacks receive MORE oppression, dependency and control, how is that discriminating against whites? The purpose of many of the racist government programs is to control certain races and keep them in certain places where racist politicians want them for their benefit. How is that "discriminating against whites"

Racist politicians do this in many ways...some of them

1. Gerrymandering districts to create majority black residents and provide "safe" seats for black congressmen.

How is it racist? It makes sure that blacks will always be a minority in congress and that white congressman (the majority) do not need to concern themselves wih "black issues" since the blacks are conveniently herded into black districts and will vote for black congressman who will simply be wall decorations in congress and never really accomplish anything.

What would NOT be racist? At large districts or districts created with no reagrd for race so that ALL congresspersons woul dhave a constituency of substantial black residents that they would consider. Black issue would be more evenly represented and considered. Instead, racists focus on the color of the face occupying the seat. Institutional racism, promoted by Democrats.

2. Subsidized abortion. Brought to you by the KKK

3. Public welfare programs with no provision to eliminate the need for welfare...instituionalized, multi-generational welfare promoted by Democrats.

There are many more, but you get the idea. That which is touted as being "good" is simply a trap to keep people oppressed. Worked for the Native Americans who have long ceased to be a viable political entity because we "helped" them so much

Your number 1. That was my point. gerrymandering hurts blacks more than it helps them. It's racist but it hurts blacks not whites.

[Danno 1,228]

This idea that Blacks in America can be racist, is a lie. This notion of 'reverse racism' is a fallacy.

When a group of people has little or no power over you

institutionally, they don't get to define the terms of your existence,

they can't limit your opportunities

Ahh Steve there you go again speaking from the gated community.

Are you not aware that many cities and locations around the country are DOMINATED by Blacks,... Black mayors black school boards, Black run police dept, black city councils..

Q_ Can those folks be racists ... or maybe they just don't have enough power?

Q2- WHy do we not know how blacks scored on the survey? Do they feel less safe arounf Black folks than whites? Do they hold stereotypes as well?

And what are the Views of Blacks concerning whites,... are we to assume their souls are free of any prejudice?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Your number 1. That was my point. gerrymandering hurts blacks more than it helps them. It's racist but it hurts blacks not whites.

Exactly, and that is why racist white Democrats insist on it. They need to "take out" the black influence on their districts, confine them to a small area, give them their "own" representatives who are so limited in number that they are politically disposable and at the same time claim to be "helping the blacks" They do the same thing with Hispanics. By isolating them and limiting their numbers in congress, they minimize what would otherwise be a powerful and broadbased influence.

And if you disagree with them,they will call YOU racist!

Racists are not stupid.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

NH has a lower murder rate than Vermont and they need a permit to carry concealed weapons.

You never said it was legal to shoot someone but you say that you feel safe because you carry a gun and can shoot anyone who threatens you. I agree you can shoot anyone but you might spend a long time in jail if you do.

You equate murder to crime. I don't. I spoke of the crime rate, you speak of the murder rate. Try again...NM you already gave up.

Anyway, which year are you speaking of? Have you considered many years? A trend? The problem with what you said is that both NH and VT have very low populations and very low crime. 1 or 2 homicides will make a profound affect on their homicide rates. So if Vermont has 2 homicides one year and 3 the next, and NH is vice versa, their homicide rates flip by 50%, yet it really does not reflect the crime rate.

Also if you are implying that there may be another reason crime, or homocide if you wish to limit yourself (might be a good idea, what do you think?) then what would the reason be if it is NOT gun laws?

Are you saying gun laws have no affect? That it is something else? what would that be?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Your number 1. That was my point. gerrymandering hurts blacks more than it helps them. It's racist but it hurts blacks not whites.

The math and theory are so simple as to be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain above the level of a frog.

You draw lines around predominently black neighborhoods, cities, counties...whatever. Connect them with little connecting links, often just a ROAD...and VOILA you have ONE black district that will reliably elect ONE black representative (because blacks are mostly racist also). Had the area been divided into equal size squares, for example, you would now have a huge black influence on 3 or 4 districts and 3 or 4 representatives...even though they may not be black in color, they would not be able to ignore the needs of their constituents who were largely, if not "majority" black. I mean, if you are a white representative and 35% of your district population is black you simply CANNOT ignore their issues, needs, desires. If instead, we have ONE black face and three whites that can simply ignore what black people want...who has gained from this arrangement?

Uh huh

Let's say you ARE a white racist. How do YOU want congress set up?

Don't believe me? Really? Consider the influence of organizations like the NRA and AARP who are a very small portion of the population and have a HUGE influence on legislation because they are broad based and cannot be ignored by ANY congress person. But let us say that we took all 5 million NRA members (less than the black population of the New York City area) and put them into 4 districts. You would have 4 NRA member representatives and guns would be banned in about 30 days.

The NRA would NEVER accept being gerrymandered into a few districts and being stripped of political influence. How stupid would you have to be to allow anti-gun people to do that?

2500, or even 500 NRA members in a district can throw the election one way or another, and the congress people KNOW it. This is why there has been NO federal gun control legislation since 1994 when the Dems passed the assault weapons ban and 3 months later were tossed from control of congress! Gun laws are now OFF LIMITS.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I am glad I stay away from this place on evenings and weekends - it means I always have entertaining stuff like this to read on a Monday morning at work.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The math and theory are so simple as to be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain above the level of a frog.

You draw lines around predominently black neighborhoods, cities, counties...whatever. Connect them with little connecting links, often just a ROAD...and VOILA you have ONE black district that will reliably elect ONE black representative (because blacks are mostly racist also). Had the area been divided into equal size squares, for example, you would now have a huge black influence on 3 or 4 districts and 3 or 4 representatives...even though they may not be black in color, they would not be able to ignore the needs of their constituents who were largely, if not "majority" black. I mean, if you are a white representative and 35% of your district population is black you simply CANNOT ignore their issues, needs, desires. If instead, we have ONE black face and three whites that can simply ignore what black people want...who has gained from this arrangement?

Uh huh

Let's say you ARE a white racist. How do YOU want congress set up?

Don't believe me? Really? Consider the influence of organizations like the NRA and AARP who are a very small portion of the population and have a HUGE influence on legislation because they are broad based and cannot be ignored by ANY congress person. But let us say that we took all 5 million NRA members (less than the black population of the New York City area) and put them into 4 districts. You would have 4 NRA member representatives and guns would be banned in about 30 days.

The NRA would NEVER accept being gerrymandered into a few districts and being stripped of political influence. How stupid would you have to be to allow anti-gun people to do that?

2500, or even 500 NRA members in a district can throw the election one way or another, and the congress people KNOW it. This is why there has been NO federal gun control legislation since 1994 when the Dems passed the assault weapons ban and 3 months later were tossed from control of congress! Gun laws are now OFF LIMITS.

exactly- even into the 90's the dems ruled the GA congressional delegation. Now because of Gerrymandering we have 8 very conservative congressmen, 3- black, and 1 slightly right of Moderate Dem. So instead of every single congressman from GA having to answer to a large black constituency we have majority conservative delegation and they black constituency in their district is so small they don't have to answer to them

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

There are no black flash mobs OR white flash mobs in Vermont because ANY Vermont store owner/employee can carry concealed handguns. Which store will YOU rob? People in Vermont do not get "out of pocket", our crime rate is very low despite ANY person being able to carry firearms.

Marvin, you said you "saw" white men drag a black man down the street until he died. Really? Why didn't you come to the man's aid and shoot the men that were doing that to him? I would. I once saw a white man begin beating a white woman with an ice scraper at red light in Vermont right in front of me. I jumped from my car with a .45 Automatic in my hand, ordered the man to stop while leveling the muzzle at his chest. The man ceased beating the woman, she escaped and I followed the man in my car while on the phone with police until they caught him. The woman was fine.

You, on the other hand, just watch as something like that happens. Why? Because you need to call someone with a gun? I don't, and that is why our crime is LOW here. I have never seen anyone dragged until they were killed in Vermont. It has nothing to do with race.

Don't you believe that if the entire population of Oakland CA had the same rights as Vermonters their crime rate would drop to almost -0-? If not, please tell me why.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

exactly- even into the 90's the dems ruled the GA congressional delegation. Now because of Gerrymandering we have 8 very conservative congressmen, 3- black, and 1 slightly right of Moderate Dem. So instead of every single congressman from GA having to answer to a large black constituency we have majority conservative delegation and they black constituency in their district is so small they don't have to answer to them

Odd fact. In researching that I saw a claim that the moderate dem is the last remaining white Democrat congressman from the deep south. Not sure if that is true or not

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Vermont is safe because we carry guns. Yes, I take a gun everywhere and carry it with at all times, even in my home. If I am awake and dressed, I am carrying a gun. For one thing, the only place you should have a LOADED gun is on you and under your direct control. Not laying about where it will not be handy if you need it and will be a potential danger to people ignorant of firearms.

The fact that the incident happened in Colorado, and not Vermont, is another telling bit of information. Only people LICENSED to carry concealed in Colorado can do so. In Vermont, ANYONE can.

I had to do some research before I came in here saying the wrong thing:

1. I would never let someone get drug to death and not do something, for the third time, I was not there. I was posting the link to give context to the topic(before you came in here and made it about guns). But like I said I don't need a gun to act, I just do.

2. Guns don't solve crime, people not committing them helps. In Vermont you had 17 murders in 2008, Texas has very lax gun laws and they had 1,248. Why? Because if you live somewhere that has good business and jobs, people are less likely to committ violence. When was the last time someone shot up a rich neighbohood? What is the threat in Vermont, the maple trees get out of hand sometimes?

3. Yes I would call the police if I saw someone in danger and I couldn't help them, it's their job. It's funny how people get out of pocket when they are carrying a gun, they put themselves in a situation because they know the outcome. You wouldn't have followed that guy if you didn't have a gun, just like someone else who was standing their ground.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

What is the threat in Vermont, the maple trees get out of hand sometimes?

As a Canadian, I can confirm they DO have attitudes!