DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   Shooting at Charleston SC Church (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/627319-shooting-charleston-sc-church.html)

CaptainMarvel 06-19-15 03:19 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by creekdipper (Post 12513752)
I totally concur, although don't think your post(s) need any defense. I read them exactly as you have characterized them...pertinent questions & honest discussion & certainly didn't feel that you were lecturing anybody. So, thanks.

I apologize for butting into the theological stuff them. I didn't take hist initial post on the topic to be anything more than snark, so I took the tenor of that subsequent exchange between you two the wrong way.

inri222 06-19-15 03:29 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12513759)
The bolded part is not necessarily true. Unless the state reports the pending felony charges to NICS, when the merchant called in the background check, it might not have shown up. That's the same thing that happens with mental health issue... if they aren't reported, then they won't be caught during the background check.

If the merchant was given the all clear by NICS, he'd be fine. The buyer, of course, committed a felony by lying on the ATF 4473, but the seller couldn't be blamed for that.

You are correct.

http://danaloeschradio.com/news/char...kground-check/

**UPDATE: CNN reports that the family changed their story and claims that Roof was given birthday money to purchase a gun and they "dont know what he did with [the money]."
Bottom line: He was ineligible to carry and the truth will out in this. Three things to consider, however:

1) If Roof, who was ineligible due to the pending felony charges (remember, charges only for ineligibility in SC) purchased a firearm through a storefront, that store will likely face charges and lose their FFL. It's a violation of federal law to make an illegal sale such as this.

2) If such a sale was allowed to go through and his 4473 wasn't flagged, who in the state did not note this on his record? What is the point of having a law that a felony charge renders someone ineligible to exercise 2A if nothing is noted on the record to prevent a background check from going through? What is the point of laws if the state refuses to enforce them?

3) The family could be lying to avoid an investigation into a felony straw man purchase.

Like I said, the truth will out

DVD Polizei 06-19-15 03:34 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
I'm not sure "the family" is the right wording. The sister called the cops as she id'd the car and the mother allegedly hid the gun once because she was concerned.

Seems like father is the person of interest. He gave dylann the gun and knew about the pending charges--or likely knew. But he could claim not knowing about it and maybe the uncle could help in that connection.

At the same time, is this the same weapon.

Giantrobo 06-19-15 03:42 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
With all this "Jesus needs you to be Sheep and take it like a man" talk and with the son of one of the victims forgiving this murderer I felt this needed re-posting...

http://i60.tinypic.com/34ov8rn.jpg

DVD Polizei 06-19-15 03:48 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
That's nice but once again why this statement. Have you looked up Baltimore deaths lately? Those are Black-on-Black Conditional Violence deaths. Meaning black folks are not practicing what they...preach. Or tweet.

creekdipper 06-19-15 03:50 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12513762)
I apologize for butting into the theological stuff them. I didn't take hist initial post on the topic to be anything more than snark, so I took the tenor of that subsequent exchange between you two the wrong way.

Thanks, Cap. I was actually more afraid that my initial response to Jason might have seemed argumentative & snippy. Pretty civil conversation for such a volatile topic.

And appreciated your info. on background checks.


Originally Posted by Giantrobo (Post 12513787)
With all this "Jesus needs you to be Sheep and take it like a man" talk and with the son of one of the victims forgiving this murderer I felt this needed re-posting...

http://i60.tinypic.com/34ov8rn.jpg

Robo, just curious...I'm sure you have encountered this attitude somewhere, but honestly wondering who's suggesting that black Christians should "just take it" while other races have the right to defend themselves?

Giantrobo 06-19-15 04:08 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei (Post 12513794)
That's nice but once again why this statement.

Because it's true.



Have you looked up Baltimore deaths lately?
Yes I did.


Those are Black-on-Black Conditional Violence deaths. Meaning black folks are not practicing what they...preach. Or tweet.
Until you deal with WHITE ON WHITE crime don't say shit to me about Black on Black Crime. ;)


9 Facts That Show White-on-White Crime Far Exceeds Black-on-Black Crime and How Media Outlets Conceal It

slop101 06-19-15 04:12 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
I'll go ahead and say that, beyond racist, the Confederate flag is flat out fucking treasonous!

Giantrobo 06-19-15 04:18 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by creekdipper (Post 12513795)
Robo, just curious...I'm sure you have encountered this attitude somewhere, but honestly wondering who's suggesting that black Christians should "just take it" while other races have the right to defend themselves?

It's an attitude that Blacks learned from Christianity. It makes them like sheep and it was well planned. Whip in one hand, Bible in the other standing over scared Blacks pounding White Jesus into their heads and making them perfect sheep to rule over. Never want to fight back, just want to "March Peacefully" , "Hold their hands up", and sing "Negro Spirituals" to get approval from White folks.

Just praying to White Jesus while being assaulted...pray pray pray. Turning the other cheek...Meanwhile, historically... Whites got up and KILLED the Brits and others who did shit to them. But those are "Patriots". We do that...We're "THUGS".

Deftones 06-19-15 04:26 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
Of course there is going to be more incidents of white crime, statistically, because there are far more white people in the US than blacks. However, in proportion to percentage of population, crimes committed by blacks far outnumber those committed by whites.

creekdipper 06-19-15 04:36 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by Giantrobo (Post 12513823)
It's an attitude that Blacks learned from Christianity. It makes them like sheep and it was well planned. Whip in one hand, Bible in the other standing over scared Blacks pounding White Jesus into their heads and making them perfect sheep to rule over. Never want to fight back, just want to "March Peacefully" , "Hold their hands up", and sing "Negro Spirituals" to get approval from White folks.

Just praying to White Jesus while being assaulted...pray pray pray. Turning the other cheek...Meanwhile, historically... Whites got up and KILLED the Brits and others who did shit to them. But those are "Patriots". We do that...We're "THUGS".

Thanks for the response & explaining your placing the attitude in historical context. I was reading the FB post as saying that this is what other races today are saying (okay for other races to fight back but not blacks), although not sure if you're talking about individual acts of self-defense or group acts of violent protests (i.e., Ferguson/Baltimore).

Serious question: Do you think whatever progress has been made would have come faster with more Nat Turner protest or with MLK, Jr. nonviolent protest? Do you think that the televised scenes of nonviolent protesters being viciously attacked by racist thugs achieved more to gain the sympathy of whites or that armed protest would have been more effective? I suppose I'm asking whether violent resistance from a minority--especially during a period of socially-acceptable oppression...witness the ways blacks were depicted by Hollywood in the 40's-early 60's (or their invisibility)--would have brought on a backlash from the rest of the white majority outside the South. If Jackie Robinson had fought with the hostile crowds, teammates, and opponents, would he have been viewed more favorably by the majority of the public who held the power?

Maybe way off the discussion target but interested in your opinion.

P.S. Re: "Patriots"...shout out to Crispus Attucks.

CaptainMarvel 06-19-15 04:37 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
Jesus H Christ, it's like reading the mutant offspring that would result if a Buzzfeed article was raped by the Chewbacca Defense.

Do people really read shit like this?

Giantrobo 06-19-15 04:47 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 12513830)
Of course there is going to be more incidents of white crime, statistically, because there are far more white people in the US than blacks. However, in proportion to percentage of population, crimes committed by blacks far outnumber those committed by whites.

Maybe, but you White Guys still lead the way in Mass Shootings.

Ranger 06-19-15 04:48 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
David Duke comment on this yet?

Giantrobo 06-19-15 04:53 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by creekdipper (Post 12513842)
Thanks for the response & explaining your placing the attitude in historical context. I was reading the FB post as saying that this is what other races today are saying (okay for other races to fight back but not blacks), although not sure if you're talking about individual acts of self-defense or group acts of violent protests (i.e., Ferguson/Baltimore).


Serious question: Do you think whatever progress has been made would have come faster with more Nat Turner protest or with MLK, Jr. nonviolent protest? Do you think that the televised scenes of nonviolent protesters being viciously attacked by racist thugs achieved more to gain the sympathy of whites or that armed protest would have been more effective? I suppose I'm asking whether violent resistance from a minority--especially during a period of socially-acceptable oppression...witness the ways blacks were depicted by Hollywood in the 40's-early 60's (or their invisibility)--would have brought on a backlash from the rest of the white majority outside the South. If Jackie Robinson had fought with the hostile crowds, teammates, and opponents, would he have been viewed more favorably by the majority of the public who held the power?

Maybe way off the discussion target but interested in your opinion.

P.S. Re: "Patriots"...shout out to Crispus Attucks.


I think Whites would have freaked to see Blacks fighting back. Civil Rights would have been slowed way down. And THAT is the fucked up part because Again, it all boils down to needing White Approval.

Just let those bigots beat you while you sing...Don't fight back Jackie, let them degrade you....then we can make a decision on your civil rights and human treatment. <- Fuckers.


http://i61.tinypic.com/6ggarl.jpg

Giantrobo 06-19-15 04:54 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12513844)
Jesus H Christ, it's like reading the mutant offspring that would result if a Buzzfeed article was raped by the Chewbacca Defense.

Do people really read shit like this?

:lol::up:

Jason 06-19-15 05:04 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by slop101 (Post 12513817)
I'll go ahead and say that, beyond racist, the Confederate flag is flat out fucking treasonous!

It's a celebration of clinging to a lost cause. Look at all the issues and reasons that are trotted out about the confederacy to blur the notion that the confederate flag is about racism. Of all those issues, the confederacy lost on every one of them.

Giantrobo 06-19-15 05:10 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by Jason (Post 12513877)
It's a celebration of clinging to a lost cause. Look at all the issues and reasons that are trotted out about the confederacy to blur the notion that the confederate flag is about racism. Of all those issues, the confederacy lost on every one of them.

Yeah it's like, they're always telling Blacks to "Get over Slavery" and "Slavery was long ago". But then there's that Confederate Flag thing they can't seem to drop...

General Zod 06-19-15 05:24 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by Giantrobo (Post 12513883)
Yeah it's like, they're always telling Blacks to "Get over Slavery" and "Slavery was long ago". But then there's that Confederate Flag thing they can't seem to drop...

I understand people wanting to hang on to history but I'm not sure why they want to hang onto bad history. It would be like a section of Germany flying Nazi flags. I was just all over Germany and I never saw one. They are embarrassed about it as they should be and want to stay as far away from it as possible. I'm not sure why the Confederate flag isn't given that same consideration. (And before anyone says anything I'm not comparing the two flags.. just that they both represent wrong.)

creekdipper 06-19-15 05:26 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by Giantrobo (Post 12513883)
But then there's that Confederate Flag thing they can't seem to drop...

If they'd had Sicily's flag, the issue might have been dropped a while back:

http://www.flagboss.com/images/detai...cfb0d2358d.png

van der graaf 06-19-15 05:27 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by General Zod (Post 12513896)
I understand people wanting to hang on to history but I'm not sure why they want to hang onto bad history. It would be like a section of Germany flying Nazi flags. I was just all over Germany and I never saw one. They are embarrassed about it as they should be and want to stay as far away from it as possible. I'm not sure why the Confederate flag isn't given that same consideration. (And before anyone says anything I'm not comparing the two flags.. just that they both represent wrong.)

:lol:. It's illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafg...ch_section_86a

inri222 06-19-15 05:27 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by slop101 (Post 12513817)
I'll go ahead and say that, beyond racist, the Confederate flag is flat out fucking treasonous!

The one in front of the South Carolina state house was put there in 1961 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. No blacks were allowed to the ceremony and Strom Thurmond spoke.


He said that the Founding Fathers created a republic rather that a democracy, "where everyone rules and majority rule is absolute." Thurmond warned the crowd that integration was a Communist plot designed to weaken America. "It has been revealed time and time again that advocacy by Communists of social equality among diverse races… is the surest method for the destruction of free governments.

"I am proud of the job that South Carolina is doing [in regard to segregation]," Thurmond said, "and I urge that we continue in this great tradition no matter how much outside agitation may be brought to bear on our people and our state."

A-aron 06-19-15 05:40 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 
Certainly not going to be any bias in a "paper" called the Black Star. Though, I would expect a similar slant if the paper was the Atlanta White Star.

I had a lengthy conversation with a co-worker (black) and how he feels whites will always be anti-black. As a white man - I'm wasn't angered by his comment - it is his opinion. But I feel like we need to teach the younger generation peace, and let the olde, bigoted generation go off and die. As each generation is instilling this hate and animosity towards others it seems like it will never end.

JasonF 06-19-15 06:02 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by creekdipper (Post 12513736)
Sure, and thanks for asking.

As you mentioned, the principle of applying context is essential. When Jesus quoted the "eye for an eye" principle and refuted it with His contrasting statement, He was specifically rejecting the idea of people taking vengeance upon those who had wronged them. If you look at the entire passage, He also advised plucking out eyes, cutting off hands, etc. when facing temptation to sin. Was He advising people to do this literally...or was He using hyperbole to stress the proper attitude that should be adopted in order to avoid sin? The emphasis is on the heart attitude (as demonstrated in His description of someone looking upon a woman with lust in his heart as having spiritually committed adultery, or someone hating someone as having committed murder). The idea of not responding to hatred with the same attitude and rather to love your enemy (and not just those who love you) is a radical idea. Rather than retaliating to attacks with a similar attitude, the response is to be love.

Does that mean that Jesus forbade self-defense or defense of the innocent? If so, why would Jesus have advised his disciples re: supplying themselves with swords (means of self-defense) in Luke 22:36?

Here's an excellent link explaining the tension in some of Jesus's statements and biblical principles of response to evil, the duty of the civil magistrate to exercise justice (vs. individual citizen retaliation), the duty of the Christian to obey civil authority when that authority does not contradict God's Word, etc.

http://christsassembly.com/literatur...JM029.htm.html

Thanks. Good food for thought -- I appreciate it.

JasonF 06-19-15 06:08 PM

Re: Shooting at Charleston SC Church
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12513762)
I apologize for butting into the theological stuff them. I didn't take hist initial post on the topic to be anything more than snark, so I took the tenor of that subsequent exchange between you two the wrong way.

That first post was snark, but it was snark in response to a bunch of comments that amounted to nothing more than a very glib "Arming church-goers is the solution, just as every problem can be solved by filling in the blank on 'We need to arm _________.'"

That turned into a substantive discussion on Christian views on non-violence, and I was more than happy to engage creek (and Ky-Fi) on that topic.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.