HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 37,422
- 29,871
- 136
Puffnstuff
Lifer
- Mar 9, 2005
- 16,181
- 4,869
- 136
So the Cliff Notes version of this is that hoodies are fine for NRA members but not for people of color?
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 34,495
- 8,561
- 136
Agreed that it is stupid, but with the video one can see the context. What they wanted to do with it. A depiction of "how others must view this show in order to force diversity on non-ethnic objects". The hoods were a really weird place to go with that, but I figure that's the producers / editors in the background wanting to make up a quick splash to tell their story.
While it "works", they could have used more tact. Ah, that's the point. Someone in their position, at that place, isn't going to have any perspective.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 36,731
- 31,683
- 136
@s0me0nesmind1 must not be able to think in more than one dimension:Bias is simply not the same thing as abject, intentional lying for the unquestionable purposes of propaganda feeding.
Stop allowing yourself to sound so stupid in public. please keep it private.
nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 60,122
- 14,977
- 136
Nice attempt at denial. The NRATV segment actually happened. Your whole schtick here is like Trump claiming he's being attacked when somebody quotes him.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,757
- 2,086
- 136
Wasn't there a thread where some dimwitted fvcknut posted a picture of a priest and claimed it was a KKKer? I seem to recall it in here. What was that thread of prime self-ownage?
You sir get NOTHING, NOTHING! For such a lame attempt at duhversion.
You should focus more on your grenade throwing. Your other skills just pathetic.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,238
- 136
Wasn't Diesel 10 a vaguely German evil motherfucker?
The rest seem very British characters to me.
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
Perhaps if the NRA defended the constitutional rights like the 2nd amendment for ALL AMERICANS they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in today.
Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California?
A law barring the open carry of loaded firearms was passed in 1967 with the support of the National Rifle Association, after armed Black Panthers "invaded" the California state capitol earlier that year.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/
It’s true that the Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone outside of law enforcement officers (and others explicitly authorized to do so) from carrying loaded firearms in public, was enacted largely in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association.
The bill was introduced in April 1967, six weeks after it had been reported that an armed group of Black Panthers acting as an escort for Malcolm X’s widow, Betty Shabazz, were involved in tense, nonviolent confrontations with airport security officers and police in San Francisco. As leftist writer Sol Stern later noted in Ramparts, “Local cops were dumbfounded to discover that there was no law which prohibited the Panthers from carrying loaded weapons so long as they were unconcealed, a legal fact which the Panthers had carefully researched.”
In a statement quoted by Associated Press, a Panther spokesman said, “The cops asked us what we were doing and we told them. ‘We’re exercising our constitutional rights and we’re not going to take any bull.'”
The Mulford Act was designed to impose a limits on those very constitutional rights in the state of California, establishing that “every person who carries a loaded firearm on his person while on a public street, or in a public place within any city or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in an inhabited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Recognizing that they were its primary targets, the Black Panthers protested the Mulford bill by sending an armed contingent to the state capitol on 2 May 1967. That was a day Ronald Reagan would never forget — nor, for that matter, remember accurately.
Sen. John Schmitz, who had tried unsuccessfully to defeat the bill, penned an editorial holding the NRA directly responsible for its passage, saying: “Members of the National Rifle Association in California should know that their organization, despite its record of opposing gun control bills in the past, favored this bill and that without NRA support it almost certainly would have been defeated.”
Despite angrily observing that the first real “victim” of the Mulford Act was “not a ‘Black Panther,’ nor a rioter, nor a criminal,” but rather an upstanding member of the Republican Party arrested for carrying a loaded gun in his vehicle, Schmitz failed in his efforts to repeal the act.
The National Rifle Association would later (during the 1970s) harden their stance against any limitations on the right to bear arms, but in 1967, when the Black Panthers emerged as the most militant defenders of that right, the NRA took a very different position.
Their mutual legacy, the Mulford Act, is still on the books today.
Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California?
A law barring the open carry of loaded firearms was passed in 1967 with the support of the National Rifle Association, after armed Black Panthers "invaded" the California state capitol earlier that year.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/
It’s true that the Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone outside of law enforcement officers (and others explicitly authorized to do so) from carrying loaded firearms in public, was enacted largely in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association.
The bill was introduced in April 1967, six weeks after it had been reported that an armed group of Black Panthers acting as an escort for Malcolm X’s widow, Betty Shabazz, were involved in tense, nonviolent confrontations with airport security officers and police in San Francisco. As leftist writer Sol Stern later noted in Ramparts, “Local cops were dumbfounded to discover that there was no law which prohibited the Panthers from carrying loaded weapons so long as they were unconcealed, a legal fact which the Panthers had carefully researched.”
In a statement quoted by Associated Press, a Panther spokesman said, “The cops asked us what we were doing and we told them. ‘We’re exercising our constitutional rights and we’re not going to take any bull.'”
The Mulford Act was designed to impose a limits on those very constitutional rights in the state of California, establishing that “every person who carries a loaded firearm on his person while on a public street, or in a public place within any city or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in an inhabited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Recognizing that they were its primary targets, the Black Panthers protested the Mulford bill by sending an armed contingent to the state capitol on 2 May 1967. That was a day Ronald Reagan would never forget — nor, for that matter, remember accurately.
Sen. John Schmitz, who had tried unsuccessfully to defeat the bill, penned an editorial holding the NRA directly responsible for its passage, saying: “Members of the National Rifle Association in California should know that their organization, despite its record of opposing gun control bills in the past, favored this bill and that without NRA support it almost certainly would have been defeated.”
Despite angrily observing that the first real “victim” of the Mulford Act was “not a ‘Black Panther,’ nor a rioter, nor a criminal,” but rather an upstanding member of the Republican Party arrested for carrying a loaded gun in his vehicle, Schmitz failed in his efforts to repeal the act.
The National Rifle Association would later (during the 1970s) harden their stance against any limitations on the right to bear arms, but in 1967, when the Black Panthers emerged as the most militant defenders of that right, the NRA took a very different position.
Their mutual legacy, the Mulford Act, is still on the books today.
This is pretty bizarre. This is not the first time they have introduced a train from another country. The most fresh in my mind is the engine Hiro who is from Japan, he was introduced in 2009.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,222
- 14,213
- 136
For crissakes man, this thread is about a video segment from NRATV. You can view the segment as embedded on a left leaning site, or you can view it on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTzMJnicxdM
What's the difference?
GoodRevrnd
Diamond Member
- Dec 27, 2001
- 6,801
- 581
- 126
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,069
- 9,448
- 136
What I wanna know is... Why are kids watching a bunch of unarmed Brit pansy trains anyway? The Isle of Sodor idolizes the nightmare of gun control...the trains have been deprived of their natural rights to bear arms! Thomas wants a Tommy gun, stat!
Also, are they promoting gauge diversity with their international trains, or do all trains of color have to conform to the same gauge???
Also, are they promoting gauge diversity with their international trains, or do all trains of color have to conform to the same gauge???
Bubbleawsome
Diamond Member
- Apr 14, 2013
- 4,834
- 1,204
- 146
I gotta say, the edit giving the trains some crazy googly eyes made me laugh a little.
We live in some weird times.
We live in some weird times.
Oliver North served his country and now he's defending civil liberties, What's the problem?
I hope the NRA did not ask for permission to use Thomas the tank image. Then Thomas the tank people take the NRA to court
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 37,422
- 29,871
- 136
Oliver North escaped prison time over the Iran-Contra affair on a technicality. The right wing loves him because selling arms to Iran to fund murderous cocaine smuggling right wing paramilitaries was obviously the right thing to do.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,302
- 14,943
- 146
What’s the problem? You want to defend children’s talking trains wearing Christian White Supremacists Burkas.
No man or anthropomorphised googly-eyed coal wagon should be wearing white burkas in this country.
Right up until he became a criminal piece of shit who violated his oath to this country by breaking the law and giving weapons to a hostile power so he could funnel money to a group of right wing murderers.
Your support of him and the fact that he is leading the NRA says so much about your lack humanity. Get out of the basement and work and maybe you'll finally develop some.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Intel processors crashing Unreal engine games (and others)- Started by BFG10K
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter