-
Features
Another Day In The USA
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
PyramidHead
Contributor
Love how all of your replies to anything I say amount to "no u"
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
All of yours amount to either an unfounded accusation of fascism or an unfounded accusation of pedophilia.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I guess that is the underlying, ultimate fear, yes, though it's unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes, at least not in the US or Western Europe. Far into the future, who knows? The projected numbers are definitely not looking good, for one thing.
Imo it's a good time to make friends with people from other tribes rather than try to circle the wagons.
Derec
Contributor
It's one thing to "make friends", quite another to preemptively submit to Islam and even desire for Europeans to become a minority in Europe and US like the Left is doing by advocating unrestricted mass migration from the third world, while at the same time encouraging white people (and only white people) to have fewer kids because "climate".
Or always badmouth your own race and claim that white people are the root of all evil (such as mass shootings) when the reality is quite different.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,816
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's one thing to "make friends", quite another to preemptively submit to Islam and even desire for Europeans to become a minority in Europe and US like the Left is doing.
Or always badmouth your own race and claim that white people are the root of all evil (such as mass shootings) when the reality is quite different.
You keep saying the left is "submitting to Islam". Last I knew, nobody here on the left is doing anything like that. WE seem to be able to tell the difference between Islamism, which we all vocally reject, and Muslims who are just living their lives as they may.
You're the one who seems to have a hard time telling the difference. To me that seems to indicate paranoid delusions.
Derec
Contributor
Then you have not been paying attention.
And also advocate mass migration of high birth rate Muslims (look at what is happening in Europe, esp. in Germany and Sweden), including very hardcore Muslims, that threaten to become a majority in Europe and thus can impose their views on actual Europeans.
By the way, this is what the former head of Swedish Social Democrats had to say?
Not submitting to Islam? She is basically claiming that Muslims have a culture, but Swedes do not.
Nope. I am just not as myopic as you to think that importing millions of 3rd world Muslims who are having 5+ children each is a good thing.
ruby sparks
Contributor
nm
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,121
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
I had a difficult time following you. You cut out some of my comments that you were responding to I think. I summarized what I thought you were trying to say below. If I mischaracterized something you said it wasn't intentional.
One thing that I want to be clear about at the start, when I say that the Republican party has moved to the extreme right and the Democratic party has also moved to right to a point that they are more moderate than they were forty years ago, I am talking about the two parties looked at as a whole, not the extremes of the parties.
So to summarize, you believe that,
The Democrats encourage illegal immigration because they have a secret plan to replace white people with illegal Hispanics who would vote for the Democrats.
You accept that the Republicans made it easier for employers to hire illegals which increases the demand for these low wage workers.
But you feel that the Democrats secret plan is mainly responsible for the surge in illegals that have occurred since the Reagan amnesty bill was signed.
You believe criticism of Obama deporting illegals is a sign of the Democrats going to the hard left.
Medicare for All is a hard left proposal.
The minimum wage should only be raised to account for inflation since 2009. $15 an hour is a hard left proposal.
You said bullsh*t, presumably to my suggestion that you get information to formulate your opinions from disinformation, i.e., dubious sources. That you were reacting to this,
You believe that Trump's grandstanding is an honest stratagem to reduce illegal immigration.
What we have here is a conflict between two conspiracy theories and we have drifted from the subject of the current thread, the mass shootings. I suggest that we make a new thread to discuss this further.
One thing that I want to be clear about at the start, when I say that the Republican party has moved to the extreme right and the Democratic party has also moved to right to a point that they are more moderate than they were forty years ago, I am talking about the two parties looked at as a whole, not the extremes of the parties.
So to summarize, you believe that,
with my comments,
The Democrats encourage illegal immigration because they have a secret plan to replace white people with illegal Hispanics who would vote for the Democrats.
Basically you are all in for the "Jews will not replace us!" The Great Replacement Theory
You accept that the Republicans made it easier for employers to hire illegals which increases the demand for these low wage workers.
But you feel that the Democrats secret plan is mainly responsible for the surge in illegals that have occurred since the Reagan amnesty bill was signed.
You discount the economic pull of jobs for the illegals compared to them wanting to vote for the Democrats. And yet you brand asylum-seekers as economic migrants. You are trying to have it both ways, illegals from Mexico are here to vote for Democrats and the asylum seekers are here for jobs!</slightly facetious>
You believe criticism of Obama deporting illegals is a sign of the Democrats going to the hard left.
But you don't believe Obama going against the Democrats' secret plan is a sign of moderation?
I haven't heard of any of the presidential candidates criticizing Obama for deporting illegals as you assert. Some have criticized him for separating families. But Obama didn't separate families as a policy to discourage the illegals like Trump was and, according to some reports, still is doing. Obama mainly deported felons making the choice in some cases between separating families or locking up whole families in prison.
As for your assertion that the Democrats want to decriminalize illegal border crossings, you must realize that making it a misdemeanor to cross the border without a proper visa (in 1964) was meaningless. No one was arrested, before Trump, for crossing the border without a visa because arresting them in the US would immediately give them the same rights as a citizen to a trial and to an attorney, many more rights than they would have as border crashers who are subject to immediate deportation, if they are caught close to the border, currently within 200 miles of it. (Trump just ignores the court orders requiring the illegal's rights.)
Decriminalizing it would be meaningless if the Democrats were actually calling for it, another assertion that you need to support.
The main and only benefit to criminalizing people crossing the border without proper visas went to those who want to demonize the undocumented immigrants because they could call them illegals and criminals because they had violated this class 3 misdemeanor, less serious than a moving traffic violation on federal lands. Even the idea that an undocumented immigrant who enters the US after having been deported before is committing a felony is based on the rather specious basis that they lied to a federal agent when they promised to not cross the border for ten years.
Nor have I heard or read that any of the Democratic Party candidates calling for open borders as you assert. Is this another area where you know what the Democrats really think? That they apparently don't even know that they think themselves? The only ones who constantly call for open borders are the Austrian/Libertarians and the original neoliberals like Milton Friedman.
What has always been illegal is hiring undocumented immigrants. There were multiple ICE raids in which they caught more than 300 illegals in Mississippi. How many people were arrested for hiring the 300 illegals?
When I first started working in heavy industrial construction I was responsible for verifying the immigration status of all of the workers that I hired and of the immigration status of all of the workers that my subcontractors hired. Our client was in turn responsible to make sure that all of my workers were legal. It sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare but in practice, it only meant that a lot of people kept photocopies of proof of citizenship in their filing cabinets.
After the amnesty bill of 1986 if I wanted to hire illegals to work on my construction site all I would have to do was to tell one of the illegals that he is now the head of a subcontracting firm and he would be given all of his and the other workers wages for him to give to the other workers. I never did this because my company would have fired me for doing it, we were a union contractor.
I said in a statement that you didn't address that the Democrats of forty years ago would never have suggested cutting Social Security as Obama was willing to do or to cut welfare as Clinton did. That the Democrats of the period were supporters of the labor unions who opposed not only illegal immigration but also legal immigration like the H1B1 visas as well as free trade because these things would have eroded the wages of the working class.
You believe that the Democrats of today support illegal immigration and yet insist they are to the left of the Democrats of forty years ago who opposed it? This makes no sense.
I haven't heard of any of the presidential candidates criticizing Obama for deporting illegals as you assert. Some have criticized him for separating families. But Obama didn't separate families as a policy to discourage the illegals like Trump was and, according to some reports, still is doing. Obama mainly deported felons making the choice in some cases between separating families or locking up whole families in prison.
As for your assertion that the Democrats want to decriminalize illegal border crossings, you must realize that making it a misdemeanor to cross the border without a proper visa (in 1964) was meaningless. No one was arrested, before Trump, for crossing the border without a visa because arresting them in the US would immediately give them the same rights as a citizen to a trial and to an attorney, many more rights than they would have as border crashers who are subject to immediate deportation, if they are caught close to the border, currently within 200 miles of it. (Trump just ignores the court orders requiring the illegal's rights.)
Decriminalizing it would be meaningless if the Democrats were actually calling for it, another assertion that you need to support.
The main and only benefit to criminalizing people crossing the border without proper visas went to those who want to demonize the undocumented immigrants because they could call them illegals and criminals because they had violated this class 3 misdemeanor, less serious than a moving traffic violation on federal lands. Even the idea that an undocumented immigrant who enters the US after having been deported before is committing a felony is based on the rather specious basis that they lied to a federal agent when they promised to not cross the border for ten years.
Nor have I heard or read that any of the Democratic Party candidates calling for open borders as you assert. Is this another area where you know what the Democrats really think? That they apparently don't even know that they think themselves? The only ones who constantly call for open borders are the Austrian/Libertarians and the original neoliberals like Milton Friedman.
What has always been illegal is hiring undocumented immigrants. There were multiple ICE raids in which they caught more than 300 illegals in Mississippi. How many people were arrested for hiring the 300 illegals?
When I first started working in heavy industrial construction I was responsible for verifying the immigration status of all of the workers that I hired and of the immigration status of all of the workers that my subcontractors hired. Our client was in turn responsible to make sure that all of my workers were legal. It sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare but in practice, it only meant that a lot of people kept photocopies of proof of citizenship in their filing cabinets.
After the amnesty bill of 1986 if I wanted to hire illegals to work on my construction site all I would have to do was to tell one of the illegals that he is now the head of a subcontracting firm and he would be given all of his and the other workers wages for him to give to the other workers. I never did this because my company would have fired me for doing it, we were a union contractor.
I said in a statement that you didn't address that the Democrats of forty years ago would never have suggested cutting Social Security as Obama was willing to do or to cut welfare as Clinton did. That the Democrats of the period were supporters of the labor unions who opposed not only illegal immigration but also legal immigration like the H1B1 visas as well as free trade because these things would have eroded the wages of the working class.
You believe that the Democrats of today support illegal immigration and yet insist they are to the left of the Democrats of forty years ago who opposed it? This makes no sense.
Medicare for All is a hard left proposal.
I made the statement that the Democrats of today aren't as far left as the Democrats of forty years ago. Do you not realize the first serious proposal to have the government handle all of the health care in the US was made in the Truman administration?
And that the ACA was virtually identical to John McCain's health care proposal in 2008, the one written by the Heritage Foundation, a notoriously libertarian think tank founded in part by the arch-conservative, Joseph Coors. And you think that it is a hard-left program?
The Democrats of forty years ago would never have made the concessions that Obama made to pass the ACA. And he had to make them because of so many conservative Democrats in the Congress.
You believe that what I said was true, that Medicare for all would be more efficient by costing less than insurance from the for-profit health insurance companies, and that this also makes it a hard-left proposal. I think that you finally have made a statement that the Democrats would agree with. But they would make the statement read as "conservatives oppose economic efficiency, they want everyone's health care to cost more" which is true.
The Heritage Foundation didn't write the health care plan that John McCain proposed and Obama stole to turn into the ACA because it was the most efficient way to deliver health care. They wrote it to bow to the realization that the health care costs were crippling the country and change was inevitable. They wrote as the conservative health care plan to preserve some portion of the health care market for the still-powerful financial sector, the insurance companies.
Medicare enjoys overwhelming support even among Republicans. The idea of near-universal health care (and not the Republican idea of universal healthcare, "they can always go to the emergency room") also enjoys widespread support as Trump and the Republicans learned when they tried to openly repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with some undefined TrumpCare which would have among other things reintroduced much higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions and for adults over fifty.
Medicare for All (MfA?) (MFA? - no, too early?) is just a proposal to combine two popular ideas into a health care program that achieves what all of us should want, widely available, low-cost health care of the highest quality possible. Isn't that what we all want?
Once again, if the Republicans have an alternative to Medicare for All or even to ObamaCare that accomplishes that goal or just puts us on a road to it they should present it. This inability to produce such a plan would make any reasonable person believe that they don't have such a plan and that they just want to go back to what we had before the ACA.
The 2007 status quo in health care was far from sustainable. Health care costs were going up by 10% per year, largely due to the slow introduction of the profit motive into the health care industry since the 1970s. It was making our products increasingly non-competitive.
And that the ACA was virtually identical to John McCain's health care proposal in 2008, the one written by the Heritage Foundation, a notoriously libertarian think tank founded in part by the arch-conservative, Joseph Coors. And you think that it is a hard-left program?
The Democrats of forty years ago would never have made the concessions that Obama made to pass the ACA. And he had to make them because of so many conservative Democrats in the Congress.
You believe that what I said was true, that Medicare for all would be more efficient by costing less than insurance from the for-profit health insurance companies, and that this also makes it a hard-left proposal. I think that you finally have made a statement that the Democrats would agree with. But they would make the statement read as "conservatives oppose economic efficiency, they want everyone's health care to cost more" which is true.
The Heritage Foundation didn't write the health care plan that John McCain proposed and Obama stole to turn into the ACA because it was the most efficient way to deliver health care. They wrote it to bow to the realization that the health care costs were crippling the country and change was inevitable. They wrote as the conservative health care plan to preserve some portion of the health care market for the still-powerful financial sector, the insurance companies.
Medicare enjoys overwhelming support even among Republicans. The idea of near-universal health care (and not the Republican idea of universal healthcare, "they can always go to the emergency room") also enjoys widespread support as Trump and the Republicans learned when they tried to openly repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with some undefined TrumpCare which would have among other things reintroduced much higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions and for adults over fifty.
Medicare for All (MfA?) (MFA? - no, too early?) is just a proposal to combine two popular ideas into a health care program that achieves what all of us should want, widely available, low-cost health care of the highest quality possible. Isn't that what we all want?
Once again, if the Republicans have an alternative to Medicare for All or even to ObamaCare that accomplishes that goal or just puts us on a road to it they should present it. This inability to produce such a plan would make any reasonable person believe that they don't have such a plan and that they just want to go back to what we had before the ACA.
The 2007 status quo in health care was far from sustainable. Health care costs were going up by 10% per year, largely due to the slow introduction of the profit motive into the health care industry since the 1970s. It was making our products increasingly non-competitive.
The minimum wage should only be raised to account for inflation since 2009. $15 an hour is a hard left proposal.
I have a difficult time understanding you, obviously you are intelligent, which leaves me believing that at some times you are being obtuse. This is one of those times.
No, the minimum wage wasn't put into law in 2009.
Here is the reasoning behind the $15 an hour minimum wage. If the minimum wage had been indexed to inflation in its real peak value year of 1968, it would be $11.36 an hour today. This isn't an unreasonable criterion to use to set the minimum wage today. It is when the economy supported the highest minimum wage without any of the dire consequences that so many predict for any increase of it. (one of the doom-sayers about the minimum wage here told me that to raise the minimum wage by 1¢ an hour would throw people out of a job, hidden down in the statistical noise of the economy, whatever that means)
But had the minimum wage kept up with the improvement in labor productivity since 1968 it would be over $19 an hour today. But it is unrealistic to say that the workers deserve to get all of the gains from labor productivity increases, so the productivity gains were split 50/50 between wages and profits for the owners. Thus they arrived at $15 an hour.
The cost of the bare essentials for a family of four with two adults working 40 hours per week ranges from $14 something an hour in Houston to $23 something in San Francisco. The average for the US is $16.07. This is the so-called living wage.
You have to pick what is a fair basis for increasing the minimum wage. But $15 an hour isn't unreasonable, it certainly isn't hard left. Every developed country has a minimum wage. Only two economic philosophies don't accept a minimum wage at all. The neoliberals who want wages to be suppressed to increase profits and the incomes of the already wealthy. And the free market fantasy believers, the Austrian/Libertarian economic philosophies, who believe without any evidence at all that the labor market in the US is a truly free factor market where employers and employees negotiate as equals to reach a mutually beneficial wage rate. The fantasy believers are deluded and the neoliberals, i.e. the Republicans, are evil.
The Republicans have constantly supported policies for all of the workers' productivity gains and all of the gains from the workers' innovations to be paid to the one group that had nothing to do with either, the stockholders as increased profits. The Republicans have stonewalled the increases in the minimum wage since before they lost their case in the US Supreme Court at the start of world war 2.
You can easily prove me wrong by listing the programs that the Republicans have proposed or enacted that reduce profits to increase wages.
No, the minimum wage wasn't put into law in 2009.
Here is the reasoning behind the $15 an hour minimum wage. If the minimum wage had been indexed to inflation in its real peak value year of 1968, it would be $11.36 an hour today. This isn't an unreasonable criterion to use to set the minimum wage today. It is when the economy supported the highest minimum wage without any of the dire consequences that so many predict for any increase of it. (one of the doom-sayers about the minimum wage here told me that to raise the minimum wage by 1¢ an hour would throw people out of a job, hidden down in the statistical noise of the economy, whatever that means)
But had the minimum wage kept up with the improvement in labor productivity since 1968 it would be over $19 an hour today. But it is unrealistic to say that the workers deserve to get all of the gains from labor productivity increases, so the productivity gains were split 50/50 between wages and profits for the owners. Thus they arrived at $15 an hour.
The cost of the bare essentials for a family of four with two adults working 40 hours per week ranges from $14 something an hour in Houston to $23 something in San Francisco. The average for the US is $16.07. This is the so-called living wage.
You have to pick what is a fair basis for increasing the minimum wage. But $15 an hour isn't unreasonable, it certainly isn't hard left. Every developed country has a minimum wage. Only two economic philosophies don't accept a minimum wage at all. The neoliberals who want wages to be suppressed to increase profits and the incomes of the already wealthy. And the free market fantasy believers, the Austrian/Libertarian economic philosophies, who believe without any evidence at all that the labor market in the US is a truly free factor market where employers and employees negotiate as equals to reach a mutually beneficial wage rate. The fantasy believers are deluded and the neoliberals, i.e. the Republicans, are evil.
The Republicans have constantly supported policies for all of the workers' productivity gains and all of the gains from the workers' innovations to be paid to the one group that had nothing to do with either, the stockholders as increased profits. The Republicans have stonewalled the increases in the minimum wage since before they lost their case in the US Supreme Court at the start of world war 2.
You can easily prove me wrong by listing the programs that the Republicans have proposed or enacted that reduce profits to increase wages.
You said bullsh*t, presumably to my suggestion that you get information to formulate your opinions from disinformation, i.e., dubious sources. That you were reacting to this,
I admit that this borders on being impolite. I didn't mean to imply that you get your information and opinions from the Russian disinformation sources set up to re-elect Trump. I am unable to tell the difference between the Russian disinformation sources and the American written, conservative disinformation sources set up to get people like you* to vote against their own economic self-interest in order to support impressing their religion, their racism, their xenophobia, their conspiracy theories, etc. on the rest of us. Perhaps you could tell me the difference.
I can only tell you that you work based on disinformation in your comments here. This is the prime example of it, your fear of immigrants and refugees. This has been the second most used way that right-wing populists have vied for support from conservatives. The most used tactic is racism.
There is a way to resolve this question. You list for us the sources you use for information that you feel are superior conveyors of the truth to the ones I use. I use The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, Time, US News and World Report, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Reuters, The Economist, Forbes, The American Affairs Journal, Smart News (an and some economics blogs. I don't watch television or cable news for information, because I don't hear very well.
Both racism and the fear of foreigners produce the same result, they set up a fear of forces beyond your control advancing the interests of the favored race or immigrant group unfairly over your interests. Combined always with the idea that the favored race or immigrant group is dangerous and responsible for all of the crime we are seeing. Every race and every group of immigrants in the US have at one time faced these baseless slanders. The fragmenting of the Whig Party in the 1840s resulted in a party dedicated to anti-immigration, the American Native Party, but they were more commonly called the Know-nothing movement. They were absorbed into the Republican party in 1860. Ever since then this kind of immigrant-bashing that you and Trump present is known as know-nothingism.
If this wasn't what you called bullsh*t on please let me know and I will respond accordingly.
* I know you voted for Clinton.
I can only tell you that you work based on disinformation in your comments here. This is the prime example of it, your fear of immigrants and refugees. This has been the second most used way that right-wing populists have vied for support from conservatives. The most used tactic is racism.
There is a way to resolve this question. You list for us the sources you use for information that you feel are superior conveyors of the truth to the ones I use. I use The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, Time, US News and World Report, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Reuters, The Economist, Forbes, The American Affairs Journal, Smart News (an and some economics blogs. I don't watch television or cable news for information, because I don't hear very well.
Both racism and the fear of foreigners produce the same result, they set up a fear of forces beyond your control advancing the interests of the favored race or immigrant group unfairly over your interests. Combined always with the idea that the favored race or immigrant group is dangerous and responsible for all of the crime we are seeing. Every race and every group of immigrants in the US have at one time faced these baseless slanders. The fragmenting of the Whig Party in the 1840s resulted in a party dedicated to anti-immigration, the American Native Party, but they were more commonly called the Know-nothing movement. They were absorbed into the Republican party in 1860. Ever since then this kind of immigrant-bashing that you and Trump present is known as know-nothingism.
If this wasn't what you called bullsh*t on please let me know and I will respond accordingly.
You believe that Trump's grandstanding is an honest stratagem to reduce illegal immigration.
This fails for so many reasons.
"Build the wall" was a stratagem by his campaign aides to remind candidate Trump to talk about illegals.
The majority of illegals don't sneak across the border, they over-stay a legal visa.
Hardening the border is what turned an annual migration of farmworkers doing work that no one in the US wants into a permanent population of full-time residents and their families who compete with native workers for full-time jobs.
The most effective way to reduce illegal immigration is to arrest and to throw in jail the CEO of any company that employs illegal immigrants. I believe that you are wrong that the illegals come to the US out of a desire to vote for Democrats. I believe that they come here to work. Repeal the Proxmire loophole in the Reagan amnesty bill and make the CEO responsible to make sure that all of the workers who work for the company are legal, even those workers who work for a contractor. You wouldn't have to lock up many CEOs until there would be no jobs for the illegals.
Substantial numbers of illegals come in the US from Canada. The only terrorist arrested trying to enter the US was arrested entering from Canada. And yet there have been no calls to build a border wall on the Canadian border. Why is that?
No, Trump's grandstanding is not to reduce the number of illegals crossing an insecure border. It is to make people afraid of all immigrants and to make extreme know-nothingism an accepted form of political discussion.
"Build the wall" was a stratagem by his campaign aides to remind candidate Trump to talk about illegals.
The majority of illegals don't sneak across the border, they over-stay a legal visa.
Hardening the border is what turned an annual migration of farmworkers doing work that no one in the US wants into a permanent population of full-time residents and their families who compete with native workers for full-time jobs.
The most effective way to reduce illegal immigration is to arrest and to throw in jail the CEO of any company that employs illegal immigrants. I believe that you are wrong that the illegals come to the US out of a desire to vote for Democrats. I believe that they come here to work. Repeal the Proxmire loophole in the Reagan amnesty bill and make the CEO responsible to make sure that all of the workers who work for the company are legal, even those workers who work for a contractor. You wouldn't have to lock up many CEOs until there would be no jobs for the illegals.
Substantial numbers of illegals come in the US from Canada. The only terrorist arrested trying to enter the US was arrested entering from Canada. And yet there have been no calls to build a border wall on the Canadian border. Why is that?
No, Trump's grandstanding is not to reduce the number of illegals crossing an insecure border. It is to make people afraid of all immigrants and to make extreme know-nothingism an accepted form of political discussion.
============== § ==============
What we have here is a conflict between two conspiracy theories and we have drifted from the subject of the current thread, the mass shootings. I suggest that we make a new thread to discuss this further.
Police appear to be on high alert and responding quickly. Has this coincided in an uptick of questioned police shootings (primarily of black people)? Or does this show that the police are well capable of responding to true threats when not having racist overtones?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,121
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
VA medical centers have their own police force on site.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Which white, cisgendered, straight, 'westen' male are you guys calling "he"?
PyramidHead
Contributor
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Not a mass shooting but could have turned into one as a convicted felon pulls out a rifle and has a shootout with the cops, killing one cop and wounding two in a busy street in broad daylight;
NBCNews
Is this a great country or what ?!
So how did a convicted felon get his hands on a rifle ? And it doesn't look like a hunting rifle it looked like one of those AR-15 we hear a lot about.
NBCNews
Is this a great country or what ?!
So how did a convicted felon get his hands on a rifle ? And it doesn't look like a hunting rifle it looked like one of those AR-15 we hear a lot about.
PyramidHead
Contributor
The AR in AR-15 stands for "Ayn Rand"
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
It stands for ArmaLite.
Pretty certain PyramidHead was being facetious.
Derec
Contributor
"Heavy, heavy weapon"? So no M16 or AK47? A machine gun like the M60?CBS said:
So now it's a shotgun?
In any case, the shooter is black. So how does that fit the leftist myth that mass shooters are white? And he was taken alive. I don't understand. As Black Lives Matter types never tire of blacksplaining to us, white shooters are always taken alive (and treated to a Whopper!) while black people are always shot dead. I am confused.
By the way, the ABC7 article lifted the mystery of the firearm. It was a "semiautomatic rifle", so neither a "heavy heavy" gun like the M60 nor a shotgun. You'd think VA crowd if anybody would know their firearms better.
laughing dog
Contributor
The argument is the vast majority of mass shooters are white because that is the reality in the USA. According to this site - https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ - out of the 114 public mass shootings between 1982 and August 2019, 64 were by white shooters. The next largest were 19 by black shooters.