Are you a racist if you own a gun?


The university explanation goes thusly:
"The Carruthers Center for Inner City Studies at Northeastern Illinois University is housed in a building that bears historical significance. From time to time, the integrity of a plaque honoring the memory of Abraham Lincoln is questioned. Installed in the building for its opening in 1905, the plaque includes an inscription of the word "democrat" following Abraham Lincoln's name. According to building archives, the word democrat was used because Lincoln was an advocate for democracy—the political or social equality of all people. The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation."
Click to expand...
Here's the problem with that. He was a Republican, because in the truest sense of the words Democrats believe in majority rule. Everyone gets a vote in a democracy, but the 51% can steal the rights from the 49% by way of that vote. Republicans believe in individual human rights, even those of slaves, which was Lincolns stance.
 

I'm pretty much neutral on any of this. You come after me or my family.........White, Black, Gay, not sure......HIGH, sober, just really ain't sure about your perception of reality. YOU threaten me and my Family, there will be consequences. Ain't saying Judge and Jury.....What I am saying is self defense against predators. Give a RATS backside who ya are!
 
wolf_fire said:
I am definitely racist. I own a black G22, a black Sig P238, a black .30-06, a black .17 HMR, and a black LMT MWS.

I own no white guns, and I don't want to own any white guns, nor purple, nor pink, nor fuschia.
Click to expand...

HA! Well, I guess I'm the "Rainbow Coalition" of gun-owners then, because my .45 is "white" (stainless slide/matte-finished alloy frame), one 9mm in Dark Earth, another one in black, another one that's gray (poly) and white (stainless slide), a blue shotgun and an unstated number of black rifles (maybe?) some with various colors of wood adorning them.

While I don't consider myself a knife-fighter in any way, shape, manner or form, I do happen to have folders that I carry regularly in all three of the colors you mention above. LOL My latest acquisition is this Kershaw Special Edition Blur:

maxresdefault.jpg


Hey, nothing wrong with making a fashion statement with your weaponry! HA!

Blues
 
whodat2710 said:
Link Removed

Libs always try to twist the truth to meet their own agenda. The above is on the library at Univ. of Illinois. Interestingly enough, it was placed there in 1905 while the KKK was at it's prime and civil rights were still in the distant future.
Click to expand...

Timothy Bryant said:
Why is Democrat at the end of that plaque? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Of course, I guess that was the point you were trying to make.
Click to expand...

r1derbike said:
How could a University of higher learning F-up something like this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, really! It should read, "Genocidal Maniac, Constitutional Usurper, and Tyrant!"
 
wolf_fire said:
The term 'democrat' means one who is an advocate of social justice and of democracy. The party 'Democrat' I cannot define without LukeM getting mad at me and my language.
.
In 1905, they didn't "screw" this up. They were saying that Lincoln was a 'democrat', not a Democrat. This is only getting a lot of airtime recently because someone tweeted it and then it got into Fox News' hands.
.
I'm sure if it was a legitimate screw up then in the last 108 years, someone would have fixed it.
.
Interestingly, Lincoln actually started in the Whig party.
Click to expand...
True. The Republican Party didn't exist when Lincoln started in politics. The Republican Party was started in 1854 to oppose the pro-slavery Democratic Party and those in the Whig Party who favored slavery. Lincoln was a prominent figure in the shaping of the new party. But Lincoln was never a democrat, in party or in social principle. The Whig Party was named after the founding fathers, and was dedicated very much to a republican form of government, not a democratic one. Democracy was never the desire of a Whig, and never the desire of Lincoln. Anyone claiming otherwise is just preaching ignorant, revisionist history.
 
Rhino said:
True. The Republican Party didn't exist when Lincoln started in politics. The Republican Party was started in 1854 to oppose the pro-slavery Democratic Party and those in the Whig Party who favored slavery. Lincoln was a prominent figure in the shaping of the new party. But Lincoln was never a democrat, in party or in social principle. The Whig Party was named after the founding fathers, and was dedicated very much to a republican form of government, not a democratic one. Democracy was never the desire of a Whig, and never the desire of Lincoln. Anyone claiming otherwise is just preaching ignorant, revisionist history.
Click to expand...

I personally agree with you, but this is what I have heard as the explanation from the college. Since 1908, no one has decided to change the sign. Either they had to change it or have a reason for keeping it.
 
wolf_fire said:
I personally agree with you, but this is what I have heard as the explanation from the college. Since 1908, no one has decided to change the sign. Either they had to change it or have a reason for keeping it.
Click to expand...
I understand, and I apologize if I sounded like I was projecting that on you. I realize this is just the straw they're grasping at to justify the sign. They're the revisionists I was referring to.
 
I just saw an article linked on a FB page about a shooting in Detroit wherein a man shot a 19 year old girl in the back when she knocked on his door looking for help after a car accident, if I recall. The article stated "Black girl murdered in white neighborhood."

I stated that I was tired of the liberal media making everything about race, regardless of the facts. The response from the poster began with, "I hate it when rich white people refuse to recognize racism blah blah blah."

I pointed out to this person that her statement in and of itself makes her a racist, and a bigot. I got no response.
 
Several months ago, there were pro-second amendment rallies all over the nation. I attended the nearest one, in a community which has a fairly large black population. I was surprised, and disappointed, that not one black person was in attendance. I found that to be very odd.
 
carsong said:
Several months ago, there were pro-second amendment rallies all over the nation. I attended the nearest one, in a community which has a fairly large black population. I was surprised, and disappointed, that not one black person was in attendance. I found that to be very odd.
Click to expand...

The range I went to in Norfolk VA was about 50/50, including women, families etc. I guess you need to compare it to the working population of your area (ammo is expensive!)
 
Rhino said:
I understand, and I apologize if I sounded like I was projecting that on you. I realize this is just the straw they're grasping at to justify the sign. They're the revisionists I was referring to.
Click to expand...

Rhino, It's posts like this of yours that have made me realize that you never need to apologize. You have, in my opinion, always been respectful with your posts.
 
wolf_fire said:
Rhino, It's posts like this of yours that have made me realize that you never need to apologize. You have, in my opinion, always been respectful with your posts.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I'm not immune to being misunderstood, so I like to clarify sometimes just to be on the safe side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 137 (members: 0, guests: 137)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
BFerguson

Share this page

Back
Top