General Categories > Newsworthy
Chambers would rather fight Police than ISIS
unfy:
--- Quote from: GreyGeek on March 27, 2015, 06:24:49 AM ---The "freedom of speech" rule in the Legislature (officials are exempt from civil or criminal charges for things said on the floor of the legislature, only removed from office) and in Congress makes politicians "super" citizens. Their free speech rights are closer to the 1st Amendment than yours or mine. If they cannot be held responsible for liable or incitement to riot why should I?
--- End quote ---
This was a necessary requirement so that you can speak your mind on the floor without fear of repercussions from an abusive state / majority. It was a way of being able to make a statement without fear of libel, heresy, etc. You must be able to speak your mind on the floor.
Do I agree that the People's rights (in this case the 1A rights) have been eroded insanely so ? Yes.
Back when the Constitution and BoR were penned, the extra protections granted to representatives was fairly minor. Sure, in pure ideology it's insanely beyond what the People are afforded - but at the time it was more or less "i can say anything a representative can say except for libel etc", not to the extreme differences we have today.
Granted, I imagine back then that standards were higher and representatives were held more accountable than they are today. Not sure, wasn't there, but I imagine so.
CitizenClark:
--- Quote from: depserv on March 26, 2015, 08:58:44 AM ---If Chambers feels that way about the police, why does he want civilians disarmed?
--- End quote ---
That is a great question. Sen. Chambers fundamentally distrusts not just police officers and prosecutors, but the institutions that police and prosecutors are part of. I don't think there is anything crazy about that — I have my own grave concerns about these institutions myself. Everyone needs to understand that Ernie is trolling you with a statement that is literally and factually correct: if he had a gun, the chances of his ever having the opportunity to shoot a member of ISIS is pretty darn slim, but his chances of having run-ins with Omaha police are far better (he has, after all, been arrested by them before). But for some crazy reason, Ernie both distrusts cops AND simultaneously believes that they are the only ones who should be armed.
Unlike Ernie Chambers and the more nationally prominent "Civil Rights, Inc." folks like Jackson and Sharpton, many ardent civil rights leaders throughout American history have prominently featured firearms freedom as essential to liberty, especially for minorities. Harriet Tubman was almost never to be found without a pistol, rifle, or both. Ida B. Wells said, “The Winchester Rifle deserves a place of honor in every Black home.”
Nicholas Johnson wrote a wonderful book about this called "Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms." (the book is here: http://amzn.com/161614839X ; a review can be found here http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/negroes-and-the-gun-slaves-fugitives-freemen-and-citizens/)
Everyone should read it, especially Senator Ernie Chambers.
Dan W:
Ernie is trolling for sure with his race baiting rhetoric, but it is a real shame he can not see, or refuses to acknowledge, the racist beginnings of gun control and that his constituents are more in need of a legal means of self defense than most other demographic groups in America
CitizenClark:
--- Quote from: Dan W on March 28, 2015, 07:53:08 PM ---Ernie is trolling for sure with his race baiting rhetoric, but it is a real shame he can not see, or refuses to acknowledge, the racist beginnings of gun control and that his constituents are more in need of a legal means of self defense than most other demographic groups in America
--- End quote ---
Exactly.
depserv:
If I remember my history right, southern states in the post Civil War South issuing so-called black codes was what led to the 14th Amendment, and the worst of those "black codes" were intended to disarm the former slaves so they could more easily be victimized by the KKK. The Klan was filled with Democrats, and the new Republican Party wanted to end the oppression of the former slaves. It's been awhile since I read about this so I might have some details wrong, but I think that's essentially how it went down.
Those who seek to disarm civilians are no friend of the black man. And neither are those who condemn the police who put their own lives on the line to defend black people. I sometimes wonder if the old KKK just decided to switch strategies, and put away their white robes and replace them with business suits, and became the leadership of the liberal cult, because that group has done more damage to the black community than the old Klan ever did, including breaking up the black family, leading them to become dependent on government, and leading them to kill each other, in greater numbers than the Klan could have accomplished. Obviously I don't really think that's how it went, but I do think Ernie Chambers and his ilk are the most insidious enemy the black man has ever had. And his insistence on hating police and disarming civilians is a big part of that.
I think it's worth pointing out that most if not all liberal leaders, including Obama, seem to share Ernie's feelings on these things; the only difference is that Ernie is stupid enough to be obvious about it. Most liberal bigots try to hide them, so you only know them by their fruits, as the Bible tells us; good ol' Ernie just blurts it out for all to hear. If it wasn't for the liars of the liberal press covering for him, he would have been out a long time ago.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version