Gotta wonder......

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Did before I responded, refer to the question I asked you.

I meant no disrespect when I asked the question.

The way I look at it, this is a "think about it" story if I ever saw one. I mean that from a perspective of what might have happened if this young man were black and carrying. Or, perhaps if this young man had been a Hispanic youth under the same circumstances.

These policemen exhibited remarkable calm and restraint in dealing with this very recalcitrant "know-it-all". That they ultimately took him into custody for obstruction is a testament to their good judgment, and I give them full credit where credit is due right alongside their rationale for asking for ID in the first place.

Just gotta wonder. That's all.

This might help remove that wonder . . .

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Ronny Raygunz

Are you having an episode or are your true colors coming out. Saying they do it too just means you are no better than the rest of them.

Saying "who" does it too, specifically? The Mulford Act was enacted by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California. The Ronny Raygunz reference was used extensively during his tenure as president as a nickname. Heck, it's even in the Urban Dictionary. The NRA also supported the Mulford Act. I'm not stating anything that isn't true, here.

And in 1967 we had a race problem in the society that has largely disappeared half a century later. Fact of the matter is that a more expansive view of the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to a more expansive view of government, wasn't embraced by the NRA until the mid 1970's. The NRA supported nearly every bit of gun confiscation legislation, including the 1968 Gun Control Act, up until that time.

Thankfully, both the NRA and Ronald Reagan evolved on federal usurpation of rights protected by the 2nd Amendment in the time since the Mulford Act was passed.

HEARTLESS wrote: And for a period of time the NRA was headed down the Canadian example of handguns at ranges only, no true private ownership. But fortunately the members voted out the Brady bunch (named for Brady campaign leftists) and focused on all gun owners rights. But since you want to talk history, lets talk the tight connection between the KKK and the Democrats, it was pointed out in the article link I presented.

Fortune, in this context is a relative term, in my opinion. The NRA has, historically (since the overthrow of the so-called Brady Bunch, as you put it) been chameleon like on gun control issues. Witness LaPierre's comments following the tragedy at Columbine High School vs his comments following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary and so many others in between.

Personally, I have no respect for NRA leadership. The NRA, itself? Yes. For their leadership? No.

According to my research, some Democrats were, in fact, "tight" with the KKK. Defining "some" is not so easy to do, though.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many so-called "Dixie-crats" abandoned the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. Wonder why that was?

To start, here's one of those "good guy with a gun" situations. Granted, this was road rage and both parties must share equally in being responsible for their idiocy when it comes to getting pissed off and cutting each other off. But, that's where it should end, from my perspective. The shooting that resulted was not self-defense in any true sense of the word.

www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/26...e-shooting/19567109/

ZHawke wrote: To start, here's one of those "good guy with a gun" situations. Granted, this was road rage and both parties must share equally in being responsible for their idiocy when it comes to getting pissed off and cutting each other off. But, that's where it should end, from my perspective. The shooting that resulted was not self-defense in any true sense of the word.

www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/26...e-shooting/19567109/

Your sense of good guy is as twisted as your panties.

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote: To start, here's one of those "good guy with a gun" situations. Granted, this was road rage and both parties must share equally in being responsible for their idiocy when it comes to getting pissed off and cutting each other off. But, that's where it should end, from my perspective. The shooting that resulted was not self-defense in any true sense of the word.

www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/26...e-shooting/19567109/

Your sense of good guy is as twisted as your panties.

Tell that to the NRA leadership. They're the ones who coined the phrase in the first place.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote: To start, here's one of those "good guy with a gun" situations. Granted, this was road rage and both parties must share equally in being responsible for their idiocy when it comes to getting pissed off and cutting each other off. But, that's where it should end, from my perspective. The shooting that resulted was not self-defense in any true sense of the word.

www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/26...e-shooting/19567109/

Your sense of good guy is as twisted as your panties.

Tell that to the NRA leadership. They're the ones who coined the phrase in the first place.

The term good guy predates the NRA by hundreds maybe several thousand years. But keep grasping at straws and straw men.

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote: To start, here's one of those "good guy with a gun" situations. Granted, this was road rage and both parties must share equally in being responsible for their idiocy when it comes to getting pissed off and cutting each other off. But, that's where it should end, from my perspective. The shooting that resulted was not self-defense in any true sense of the word.

www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/26...e-shooting/19567109/

Your sense of good guy is as twisted as your panties.

Tell that to the NRA leadership. They're the ones who coined the phrase in the first place.

The term good guy predates the NRA by hundreds maybe several thousand years. But keep grasping at straws and straw men.

I see where you're trying to go with this. Well played, I must say, well played. But, of course you knew I was referring to Wayne LaPierre's quote regarding good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns, didn't you (rhetorical question).

I doubt anyone would consider a reserve officer shooting someone in the described situation a good guy. But you can run with it if you like.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: And for a period of time the NRA was headed down the Canadian example of handguns at ranges only, no true private ownership. But fortunately the members voted out the Brady bunch (named for Brady campaign leftists) and focused on all gun owners rights. But since you want to talk history, lets talk the tight connection between the KKK and the Democrats, it was pointed out in the article link I presented.

Fortune, in this context is a relative term, in my opinion. The NRA has, historically (since the overthrow of the so-called Brady Bunch, as you put it) been chameleon like on gun control issues. Witness LaPierre's comments following the tragedy at Columbine High School vs his comments following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary and so many others in between.

Personally, I have no respect for NRA leadership. The NRA, itself? Yes. For their leadership? No.

According to my research, some Democrats were, in fact, "tight" with the KKK. Defining "some" is not so easy to do, though.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many so-called "Dixie-crats" abandoned the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. Wonder why that was?

Honesty would demand that the Republican Party be recognized for what it is and what it has always been, a party dedicated to the equal treatment of all by the government. The Republican Party was founded as a single issue party. The abolition of slavery in the Union. The Republican Party is responsible for the existence of civil rights legislation in 1866, 1875 and in 1964. Members of the party introduced the legislation and were responsible for ensuring that the measures found their way to the president's desk. In 1866 the Republican led Congress overrode a presidential veto, that of Andrew Johnson, Democrat, to ensure that their civil rights bill became law.

Even to this day you will find, generally speaking, that Republicans are far less likely to distinguish by race than their Democrat counterparts are. Republicans do not see race as a pivotal factor the way Democrats always have and continue in that view. We are more likely to make judgements based on content of character than color of skin - which is why we fail to view either Brown or Martin as a modern day Emmett Till.

The best way to assure that the past remains part of the present is to keep bringing it up. If you want to move forward from the past you must leave it where it belongs, in the past.