If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

Well as usual what you’re claiming is sorta kinda true, but misses whats happened in black communities since the beginning of the war on drugs.
There’s a reason blacks are imprisoned at 5 times the rate of whites and it has become a self propagating mechanism.

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, prosecutorial practices, and legislation resulted in Black people being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a couple packs of sugar — was, for sentencing purposes, deemed the equivalent of 500 grams of powder cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed larger numbers of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests nonetheless came from Black communities who were disproportionately impacted by the facially neutral, yet illogically harsh, crack penalties.
Far easier targets to arrest and convict.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

Every time I point our where you're wrong, I'm either moving the goal post of engaging in false equivalence.

Earth to Wayne...there isn't a huge amount of violent crime in leafy, upper middle class suburbs. That's why comparing rates at which blacks die by cop to their makeup of the general population, means absolutely nothing. Cops on Nantucket don't routinely find themselves in life or death situations with guns drawn. So you exclude the outliers.

In another thread, you mentioned you aren't a biblical scholar (big shock), Add to that list, that you're not a statistics scholar either.

Wayne, what's the rate at which blacks are murdered in general (not just by cops), compared to their makeup of the general population? It's also much higher. Yet most blacks are murdered by other blacks. Is that because of white racists? Or is it because of socioeconomics?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...lice-shootings

From the Manhattan institute...

"these data and studies rebut the most extreme accusations of racial bias, in which police officers are thought to be killing nonthreatening black men with astounding frequency"

Cops don't shoot people at random, uniformly across the country. It's something that's mostly concentrated in the big cities, so that's the universe you look at.

Chapter 1 of any statistics book.

Of course there are racist cops to be rooted out. But there's nohting even close to an epidemic of police killing of blacks.

Wayne, if you took all the black kids struggling in the cities, doomed for poverty and violence, please tell me which of the following two things would help them more? Which would lead to more of them climbing out of poverty?

(1) giving them white skin, or,

(2) giving them 2 parents who love each other and their kids, who are deeply committed to ensuring their kids have a good future, who read to their kids every single day and are involved with keeping tabs on their education?

Which would be more valuable?

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

Suck my #^&#^&#^&#^& you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing POS

the truth hurts i see.

for the 12th time, please point me to a nice CT town that has similar tax costs to what can be enjoyed in some of the towns in NC, NH, FL?

answer: there are none. Zip.

that doesn’t mean all of TN is nicer than all of CT. It does mean there are places in southern states where you get more for your dollar. America is realizing that, and the data speaks for itself.

I never said you said TN was better as we all know it is a crappy state.

You constantly point out the outlier. I could care less about the outlier. I'm more concerned about the states as a whole.

As I said the way you talk to people shows what a POS you are and shows why there is not one person here you are friends with who will call you up to do anything. You can say Kevin is your friend but is he really? You are toxic.

you’re more do concerned about the state as a whole. sure. so you put zero thought into which town in CT you’d live in.

in any event, america clearly doesn’t share that logic. that’s why they’re moving in huge numbers to states that, as a whole aren’t better than CT, but have specific places that are as nice as CT at a lower cost.

My brother lives in Franklin TN. He doesn’t care that Memphis is a mess. Just because it’s in the same state?

Americans want what the best of CT has to offer, but they don’t want to horribly overpay for it. Turns out they don’t have to.

Obviously you’re lying again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Using Frankling TN as an arguement is using out an outlier- which you said earlier (when you went off the handle - keep the guns away from angry Jim!) should be disgarded. We have stats for 350M. people which show D run states are richer and healthier and R run states are poorer and less healthy. Pretty compelling evidence.

And your whole arguement was proven wrong when I posted stats showing migration to Fl. hasn't changed over the last 50 years or so. Approximately 850 per day. No difference between when Rs where gov or when Ds were governing. How many times have you posted that argument yet it was proven 100% wrong?

So I've asked you 10 times now, why there aren't any similar outliers in CT (towns with high quality of life and very low taxes), and not once have you come close to answering. Those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states.

The fact that FL has always had migration, doesn't even come close to refuting my point. Just because my grandparents retired there doesn't mean I'm going to retire there. There has to be something about the state that makes me want to move there.

When FL had democrat governors, they didn't implement a big state income tax (like they did in CT). It was still a conservative state, it's never been considered a blue state.

When people decide to move to one state or another, I don't think they put a lot of emphasis on how bad the cities are, unless that city is very close to where they want to live. Memphis, TN is a sh*thole. That hasn't stopped Franklin from becoming a BOOMING suburb. Same with FL, NC, NH. If a state has beautiful and low cost suburbs, most people won't be scared away if that state also has gross cities an hour away. I doubt there's a state in the country that doesn't have some awful cities within. CT has Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury. You seen those places lately? I have.

You're not holding any cards in this game. None. As blue states lose population, not only do they lose tax revenue (which is hurting CT), they also lose congressional seats, and thus electoral votes.

Cities are where poor people live and if someone increases their income, they move out. They live their bc of better access to transportation, social servicers, etc. - the things that poor people need. You haven't figured that out yet?

so you deny that those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. But that’s precisely where people are moving in big numbers. so how can not be their value proposition?

Youre denying facts that you dont like.

I never denied the fact that 850 people a day are moving to Florida. I just showed you that 850 people a day have been moving to Florida for years regardless of what party was in control. You haven't been able to show that they are moving to Florida bc of Desantis' policies but have been claiming that. I have never claimed that the 160 cities are better than the 225? cities in Fl or Tenn, etc. Just that overall Conn. is richer, healthier, etc than those states.

You denied that having lost cost suburbs with a high quality of life, is a value proposition of red states. But that's where the people are moving to in big numbers, which is proof that people do think that's the value proposition.

So the "value proposition" is as follows:

Move to the outliers towns where there is a good quality of life if you have enough money but if you don't have enough money, you are out of luck and we really don't care about you enough to raise our taxes to try improving your life.

"if you have enough money"

What you failed to admit, is that the required amount of money to enjoy those towns is far less than what's required to enjoy the suburbs of CT, which is the obvious (to everyone except you), entire point.

"raise our taxes to try improving your life."

Funny, one of the many questions you keep dodging is this one...what am I getting from the state of CT for my taxes, that I wouldn't get in NH if I moved there?

I keep asking that, you keep dodging.

If higher taxes were the reason for a higher quality of living, people wouldn't be fleeing high tax states. This is the point. People are realizing that you don't get anything for those exorbitant taxes here in CT, unless you're a public unionized employee. Most aren't.

Paul, I immediately concede there are statistics that are much more favorable to CT than for FL or TN - average education, health, life expectancy. That's obviously true. Impossible to deny. What is easy to deny, is that the state is the reason why. If you moved to FL, why would anyone believe that you'd suddenly become fat, lazy, stupid? People decide these things for themselves, the state government isn't your mother. Liberals push that nonsense to justify the taxes. America is waking up to the reality that it's not true.

You have to be pretty wealthy to enjoy CT, and CT has an awful lot to offer wealthy people. So wealthy people will want to live here and stay here. That doesn't mean the state made them wealthy. Catering to wealthy people, and making people wealthy, are very different things.

There's a big, big difference between correlation and causation.

So why do the majority of the stats show that the states historically run by D admins. rank higher than the majority of the states run by R admins? Just a coincidence or is it a philosophy the 2 parties have? Studies based on 350M people is a pretty credible group and the stats show the Ds states rank better than the R states.

This has been asked and answered many times. Democrats, on average, are wealthier than Republicans. That's correlation, not causation. There's nothing in conservative ideology that leads to poverty. But todays brand of liberalism is more attractive to people who are already wealthy, than todays brand of conservatism.

This is another example of "everything is OK when democrats do it", because not long ago Wall Street leaned right, and liberals never stopped attacking the GOP for catering to the super rich. Today the rich lean left, and - voila! - all of a sudden it's not a bad thing when your side caters to the wealthy.

You asked, I tried to answer. Is there any chance you can show me the same courtesy? What services to I get from the state of CT thanks to my taxes, which I would lose if I moved to NH thanks to their not having state taxes?

If I moved to NH, I'd still work hard, I'd still like to read, I'd still watch my kids like a hawk and make sure they were doing their homework, I'd make sure I limited their screen time and got them into healthy activities. I'd still exercise and eat right. The state government of NH would not force me to give up my healthy habits.

It's got nothing to do with the state government. In my case, I'd have a ton more money to spend on my kids, better private schools, nicer vacations together, I could afford better colleges for them.

Paul, it's probably at least $15k a year in my pocket (more like 20k a year now that my wife is working) that I'd save. I don't get anywhere near that from the state of CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb of NH.

Please tell me what I'm getting for that money, that I wouldn't get in NH. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over an entire career. And what do I get for it? A bill that the state of CT will hand me, for promises they made on my behalf to labor unions, which couldn't be funded even with the stupid taxes we currently pay. That's what I'll get. UCONN is very expensive (cheaper to pay out of state for public university in FL, and that is fact), our roads suck, our cities suck, our electric bills just went up 50% if you have Eversource, gas is expensive, we pay local car taxes annually that moost states don't charge...it goes on and on and on.

A US court in Texas has struck down a 30-year-old law that barred people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.
The court, as part of the ruling, dismissed charges against a Texas man found guilty of harassing and stalking his girlfriend and also in possession of arms despite a ban.
The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling in June expanding gun rights.
The US justice department is expected to appeal against the order.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Congress had determined the law "nearly 30 years ago".


Red states once again putting gun owners before victims and common sense

GOP Rep. Clyde hands out assault-rifle lapel pins to House colleagues

Yep another example where changing the Gun culture has failed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It really has been a cultural change. Read Ryan Busse’s book Gunfight. He was a gun manufacturer ceo who has an interesting perspective in the change to the ‘couch commandoes’ types in the last few years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

couch commandoes’

I like that term. I love to see these people when the decide to get off the couch then they play Dress up for effect

Another example how simplistic originalism endanger Americans

Zackey Rahimi was, one presumes, not the kind of upstanding citizen the justices had in mind.
Over a six-week stretch from December 2020 to January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.


Or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it in vacating Rahimi’s conviction for illegal gun possession, “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”


So now we’re back to assessing the constitutionality of laws. Only if you can find the hunt down obscure, colonial-era statutes to determine if there are counterparts to modern rules

Makes no sense :btu:

George Washington NEVER said or wrote any of the following quotes cited by gun nuts, Republicans and even judges:

1. When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”

The quote seems to originate from an online publication: The American Wisdom Series presents Pamphlet #230, "President George Washington's Thoughts on Firearms." The author provides no citation for the quotations used.

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.


2. “When a nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is it sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans.”

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

3. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.”

This quotation does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote.

4. “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:


A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."



Source:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/...us-quotations/

Not my research on the topic but a great example of how those who cite and support originalism . Quote things that were never said and make their own interpretations to someone written words

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s stupid to reference british judges. all he had to do is say “the idea that protection against illegal search and seizure was designed to allow for infanticide, is stupid, and obviously not what’s in the constitution.”.

although he was apparently responding to a comment from the solicitor general. doesn’t matter if abortion is a crime or not, that’s not what the supreme court decided. overturning roe did not make abortion illegal. it returned the question to the states where it belongs. The supreme court didn’t say that states cannot outlaw abortion. your side doesn’t seem to grasp that. the supreme court decided, correctly, that it’s not a federal issue. The constitution specifies the things that are federal issues, and says everything else goes to the states.

At the state level, have the argument about whether or not it should be legal.

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text:faga:

who used those fake quotes?

No i didn’t miss the point of your post, which was to attack the gop for using bogus facts to win a political argument. my point, is that you don’t care when democrats say the police killed michael brown when he said hands up don’t shoot which he never said, you don’t care when your side says pro lifers motive is to
enslave women, when they said rittenhouse carried the rifle illegally across state lines. etc…. you have no principles. zip.

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.