How does the example of “Jews in Nazi Germany” equate to being a felon?
Are you saying being a Jew is a crime? 
When you make exceptions to a fundamental right based on status then it is no longer seen as a right.
Yeah. That didn’t answer my question. Thx
I don’t really understand your question either honestly. What do you think? That a felon is no longer a citizen forever? So therefore they have no rights? Just like Nazi Germany did to Jews.
Now your example is clear to me.
What do you think? That a felon is no longer a citizen forever? So therefore they have no rights?
Well that’s pretty much what I think a vast majority of political leaders want, especially when it comes to AAs.
To be AA in America is live in this gray space. Constitutionally we have rights because of the 14th amendment but then the Dred Scott case (among many others) tend to chip away them.
So no I don’t think having been charged with a felony should erase one’s rights as a citizen, but certain crimes should.
Which still makes little sense because while they don’t have the right to vote, own a gun, etc they still have to contribute to society in certain ways.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the the BPP was involved in shady dealings across the board.
Equating what Killer Mike is saying to the BPP is not doing KM any favors.
I would say the Mulford Act (Cali Gov Reagan) had a bigger hand than COINTELPRO 
And I wonder what these purported shady deals the Black Panther Party would have been. 
Like creating free breakfast program is “shady” 
Dred Scott case was in the 1850s:
In December 1854, Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court. The trial began on February 11, 1856. By this time, the case had gained notoriety and Scott received support from many abolitionists, including powerful politicians and high-profile attorneys. But on March 6, 1857, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, Scott lost his fight for freedom again.
The 14th Amendment was later:
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”
I don’t follow how DS chips away at the 14th Amendment. Pretty sure no one is suing AAs to rescind their Freedom. 
Selling drugs out the back was.
And the murders and tortures and rapes…that stuff too.
The Dred Scott case like any SCOTUS case is basis for arguing other cases.
What stands out in this case is:
For Chief Justice Taney and the six other justices who concurred with his decision to deny Scott’s petition, the principal issue at stake was the question of whether Dred Scott had any right to sue in the first place. The chief justice’s opinion defined the right to seek redress in federal court as the sole prerogative of “citizens” of the United States. He argued that the framers of the Constitution never intended that the “class of persons . . . whose ancestors were Negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves” could “become entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities” guaranteed to citizens of the United States.
Nice attempt. Got links or proof of that?
Probably not.
Sure. Wikipedia.
ANywho, this thread is about Killer Mike.
Then stay on topic.
I will if you will.
Really don’t know your point with the first qoute.
Again, the peak irony of you attempting to dictate an AAs behavior in such a thread.
I think this is what KM is talking about. Getting guns into the right hands. It’s not just a blanket statement that no one should have guns, but as he says, "
The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates
Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws, and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.
It’s a particularly compelling finding because in March 2019, Siegel and collaborators drew virtually the same conclusion by analyzing state laws in comparison with death certificate data collected nationally by the CDC.
In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.
Universal background checks, which have long been a top priority for gun control advocates and policymakers in the United States, appear to have the biggest impact. Though there has been a push for federal gun regulations in recent years, the power to legislate gun sales and gun ownership is largely beholden to the states. And according to Siegel, the data don’t lie. The average firearm homicide rate in states without background checks is 58 percent higher than the average in states with background-check laws in place. As of 2017, only 13 states, including Massachusetts, had laws requiring universal background checks.
From the interview section:
Which aspects of your findings are particularly striking to you?
Tight regulation of who has access to firearms, rather than the type of firearms that are allowed, differentiates states with the lowest rates of homicides. What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws. The practice of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at the greatest risk for violence—based on a history of violence—appears to be the most closely associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide.
The 14th amendment made exceptions to slavery if it’s punishment for a crime. This in turn ushered in the black code and Jim Crow laws intended to punish african americans by punishing them for crimes, real or imagined.
When you hear about “gun control” it’s always about keeping guns away from violent felons but the same background check laws also deny nonviolent persons who spent time in prison 20 years ago because of drug possession, or other crimes that has nothing to do with guns or violence.
So if DC v. Heller can agree that the right to own a gun can be taken as a part of a punishment then why have laws that have a blanket ban on guns for anyone with any record of an offense with a maximum sentence of more than 1 year imprisonment (to which most of them actually served much less than 1 year, if they even were in prison at all)? Why not give sentencing judges the power to decide? Like convicted of murder, aggravated robbery? 20 years imprisonment and loss of gun rights forever (or less depending on the circumstance of the crime). I realize that’s not perfect but it’s a lot more perfect compared to a blanket law. Taiwan certainly don’t strip civil rights forever unless it’s something serious (like something carrying life imprisonment). Neither does most countries, but the US leads the world in felony disenfranchisement (meaning depending on state laws, you lose the right to vote for having any felony convictions).
I just can’t believe that the US government is still stuck in the antebellum mindset when it comes to treatment of African Americans. It’s 2020, they should just grow up.
Why are you obsessed (in this thread) with the people who can’t get guns legally?
Killer Mike is focused on responsible gun ownership in the black community. Surely there are adult men and women in said community who do not have a criminal record that precludes them from buying a shotgun or getting a conceal carry permit.
Where is this?Oh, and he needs a safety review. Point that thing down and get yer hand away from the trigger. 
1 Like