Cannabis referendum.

[HenryDorsetCase]

A better question, how many people Have been illegally shot by licenced firearms owners?
:corn::not:

fuckface christchurch killer was a licenced firearm owner.

[HenryDorsetCase]

That’s the paradigm of the extreme left virtue signalling to buy votes from minorities.

What a lot of shit. "extreme left virtue signalling" my hairy arse. Also your reference to "minorities" is an interesting one. Care to expand on that Obergruppenfuhrer?

[caseye]

fuckface christchurch killer was a licenced firearm owner.

Yes he was, an unknown foreign national who was not vetted correctly by NZ Police, no face to face with family members or a long time friend/associate, they took the word of another foreign national residing in Australia and a random person here in NZ who said they knew him from a forum on the internet, never actually met him. As I understand it they did not even do a home check or make sure he had a compliant safe/cabinet.
Then they issued a Firearms Licence.
Wrong on every level.
If it's to blame someone, start with the NZ Police firearms officer whose job it is, to thoroughly test as best they can any applicants sanity, mind set,their nominated family members and friends who are supposed to be long time associates, then the minister of Police, then the govt, all of whom have quietly not mentioned that they knew this person was not correctly vetted and could not have got a firearms licence under any normal circumstances.
I don't know the answer to this, but Did the NZ Police check with their Ozzie counterparts? had they, they might still have refused his application.
It has happened, most New Zealanders cry foul and agree with tougher regulations, so do most firearms licence holders, once it is explained to the general public that no can get a licence without being vetted as I've outlined above, they ask the Question!
How did this happen?
When it is explained that all of the authorities involved in this tragedy have kept a dirty little secret, they are justifiably outraged, our authorities let this happen, make them apologise to the families of the people sensely killed by a maniac with a gun, who got it from a slack NZ Police system, at the very least.
I've not got emotional or gone off track with this reply HD, as I know them, the above are facts, all can be checked.:(
As I've said before, some licenced firearms holders have used their legally owned firearms to commit murder, not many, and when you consider the number of firearms owned by the law abiding, as a group we do exceptionally well at vetting ourselves our friends and contemporaries without any prompting by authorities.

We've gone completely off topic here, so back to it.
Good result, no stupid young pups getting their heads full of smoke and going to work, just to give it :Punk: to the man

[husaberg]

A better question, how many people Have been illegally shot by licenced firearms owners?
:corn::not:


Yes he was,

As was David Gray before him 1990
As was stan Graham 1941
Jan Molenaar 2009 had held general and collector's firearms licenses but was one of the 50,000 who saw them expire in 2002. he killed one and injured three
Rarimu - A police sergeant tried to have Neville Anderson's firearms licence revoked in the year before the Raurimu massacre. Stephen Anderson used his father Neville's shotgun to kill six people, including his father, in the central North Island Raurimu 1997
Brian Schlaepfer had a firearms licence yet he killed 7 in 1992
Bain family both David and his father had gun liciences.1994

You also can state what happened with the CHCH killer license are facts as the information has not been released.

ps whether by a licensed gun owner or not all were shot "illegally" other than the murders themselves.

[FJRider]

Yes he was, an unknown foreign national who was not vetted correctly by NZ Police

BUT ... at the time of the shooting ... a full legally licensed firearms owner.


The real issue is ... how many others out there ... got their license in exactly the same way ... ???

[R650R]

What a lot of shit. "extreme left virtue signalling" my hairy arse. Also your reference to "minorities" is an interesting one. Care to expand on that Obergruppenfuhrer?

Sorry I should have included a trigger warning and left some blank lines for a safe space

[Katman]

Sorry I should have included a trigger warning and left some blank lines for a safe space

I'm sure a snuggly blanky will surfice.

[F5 Dave]

What are you smoking? Religion doesn’t come into this debate at all. And you thrown in the race card which is not a factor in the vote either, lots of them at our local churches too FYI

According to popular opinion lots of people in NZ smoke weed at times. Very few of them come to the attention of the police. Like everything else it’s the attitude test and what else you doing at time.
Jesus arse fucking Christ, of course religion comes into it. The churches heavily funded Say No To Dope. So religion is tantamount to the conversation.

Evil cunts. Turn the other cheek? Nah. Spread hate. That's why sexual abuse is covered up by the clergy. God loves to watch. Cause if he was real he would do something to stop it.

Instead he has a jerk off watching choir boys getting raped. And church members are complicit with the practice, else they would have outcried against it.


Race? Well documented, that the police pick on brown skinned people using dope as a good excuse to persecute.

Oh. You're Billy Hohepas brother? He's a bad gang member. You're headed the same way, best get in early.

Job prospects reduced. Please predict the outcome. This isn't a theory. This is well documented.

[scumdog]

Did you not notice the results? It was pretty close to 1/2. I'd not be betting the same results in 10 years when the churches money is greatly reduced as more people stop giving money to a dopey religion of hatred.

Thats all they believe in. Hate.

And more brown people will be prosecuted in that time.


And I've never smoked. I'm just not as closed minded.

It was a ploy by Labour.

"Oh look at this referendum that Labour has going, if we vote 'yes' and vote Labour they'll legalise cannabis, hoo-rah!"

[R650R]

Jesus arse fucking Christ, of course religion comes into it. The churches heavily funded Say No To Dope. So religion is tantamount to the conversation.

Evil cunts. Turn the other cheek? Nah. Spread hate. That's why sexual abuse is covered up by the clergy. God loves to watch. Cause if he was real he would do something to stop it.

Instead he has a jerk off watching choir boys getting raped. And church members are complicit with the practice, else they would have outcried against it.


Race? Well documented, that the police pick on brown skinned people using dope as a good excuse to persecute.

Oh. You're Billy Hohepas brother? He's a bad gang member. You're headed the same way, best get in early.

Job prospects reduced. Please predict the outcome. This isn't a theory. This is well documented.

I don’t think the religious sector cares much if people smoke drink or whatever, they all about redemption anyway?
I don’t really watch TV so didn’t really see any of the anti campaigns, do you have evidence of this church funding?
Police are too busy to pick on anyone, they only deal with people who come to their attention.
You only have to watch that prison dog tv show to see it’s the impaired judgement that gets drug users in trouble.
I mean who goes somewhere knowing high chance of being searched and don’t clean their car out beforehand...

[F5 Dave]

Oh go on scummy. Tell me it doesn't happen. Objective decisions on who to prosecute and who to pass.

[R650R]

Oh go on scummy. Tell me it doesn't happen. Objective decisions on who to prosecute and who to pass.

Forgot to add, I have people in my street who absorb a lot of police attention and resources, they are prob in the demographic you care much about. They quite obviously ‘smoke’...
Yet cops never bang them up for it.
The cops for most part seem happy no one is shot or stabbed and they move on to next job.

[F5 Dave]

To care is human.

[caseye]

BUT ... at the time of the shooting ... a full legally licensed firearms owner.


The real issue is ... how many others out there ... got their license in exactly the same way ... ???

Agreed, that is a real issue.
:cry:

[Dean]

To care is human.

Well said.

[TheDemonLord]

To care is human.

Is it?

Unrestricted compassion is no virtue.

[Drew]

Only pain waits down that road.

Fuck 'em all.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Sorry I should have included a trigger warning and left some blank lines for a safe space

Or maybe take your fascist bullshit elsewhere?

[F5 Dave]

Is it?

Unrestricted compassion is no virtue.

I'm not trying to start a bleeding hearts club. I'm just saying that there are consequences to our actions as a society.
The moral majority is currently white Christians biased and Conservative position is to keep it that way because they don't really give a shit about anybody else.

But the downside of this is an widening gap of demographic groups. Applying a bigger hammer doesn't fix any issues. The issues fester and we have more burglary drugs and gangs . Fucked if I want that to get worse.

And thats just being selfish. The poor pricks trapped in that cycle can't be having a good time.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm not trying to start a bleeding hearts club. I'm just saying that there are consequences to our actions as a society.
The moral majority is currently white Christians biased and Conservative position is to keep it that way because they don't really give a shit about anybody else.

Given the current Election result and the EoL bill result (something Christian Conservatives aren't too keen on, something something mortal sin) - how can you say that they are the Moral Majority?

Furthermore - Why the need to bring up Race?


But the downside of this is an widening gap of demographic groups. Applying a bigger hammer doesn't fix any issues. The issues fester and we have more burglary drugs and gangs . Fucked if I want that to get worse.

And thats just being selfish. The poor pricks trapped in that cycle can't be having a good time.

Although a topic for a thread in it's own right - There are some people that are Poor through no fault of their own - for these people I have the utmost sympathy and do not begrudge my taxes to provide them a safety net and a helping hand to get back on their feet.

There are some people that are Poor through bad choices - for These people, My sympathy levels vary from 'That's unfortunate' to 'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes' - yet for these people I still don't mind providing a safety net and helping them.

There are some people who have Mental health issues, that results in them being Poor and especially homeless - How we deal with Mental Health in the Western World is an issue, we should be doing more and doing it smarter to help these people, throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, but neither does ignoring it either.

Then there are some people who either see Welfare as a way-of-life or have been suitably disincentivized from working - and this is where I get a bit annoyed.

[R650R]

Or maybe take your fascist bullshit elsewhere?

You do realise that the definition of fascism is the merger of State and Corporate (big business) power, neither of which I wield.
It’s ironic that the extreme left call themselves anti fascist when there own actions (severe protest and boycotts) are targeted to bring about joint govt and business change through the “woke ” culture of selective diversity.

[F5 Dave]

Given the current Election result and the EoL bill result (something Christian Conservatives aren't too keen on, something something mortal sin) - how can you say that they are the Moral Majority?

Furthermore - Why the need to bring up Race?



Although a topic for a thread in it's own right - There are some people that are Poor through no fault of their own - for these people I have the utmost sympathy and do not begrudge my taxes to provide them a safety net and a helping hand to get back on their feet.

There are some people that are Poor through bad choices - for These people, My sympathy levels vary from 'That's unfortunate' to 'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes' - yet for these people I still don't mind providing a safety net and helping them.

There are some people who have Mental health issues, that results in them being Poor and especially homeless - How we deal with Mental Health in the Western World is an issue, we should be doing more and doing it smarter to help these people, throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, but neither does ignoring it either.

Then there are some people who either see Welfare as a way-of-life or have been suitably disincentivized from working - and this is where I get a bit annoyed.

Fair points. Part one, I don't think they convinced enough middle nz despite their Fear and distrust pamphlets and adds. But I think their tactics did work on just enough for the 2nd referendum.

Why did I bring race into it? Because its largely brown skin people who are picking up convictions for weed if you believe mainstream journalism to look at the statistics, and I guess I do as it's hard to misread that.

It's also bassis of studies here and overseas that there is systematic racism in police forces. End result I think my initial rant was reasonable.

I know 2 people with convictions for weed, both white but were 15 or more years ago. Pointless exercise really.

[FJRider]

To care is human.

To NOT care (if it suits) is normal.


Go figure ...

[TheDemonLord]

Why did I bring race into it? Because its largely brown skin people who are picking up convictions for weed if you believe mainstream journalism to look at the statistics, and I guess I do as it's hard to misread that.

As opposed to 'it's largely people who choose to engage with weed who are picking up convictions for weed'

By making it about someone's Skin Colour, it is denying them individual agency. I'll agree that there are discussions that should be had about people in low socio-economic groups and the prevalence of Drug use, but again - we can have that discussion without needing to reference race.

We could take it one step further and talk about Minority groups, however when you really dig into that minefield, you tend to find that the most influential factors are not race (although it can, in some cases, play a part) but cultural norms and practices.


It's also bassis of studies here and overseas that there is systematic racism in police forces. End result I think my initial rant was reasonable.


Systemic Racism you say?

And how do you measure that? One way might be to look at the number of people locked up, by race and compare it to the proportion of the Population and say that a certain group is over-represented, ergo Racism. But when you factor in who and where the crime is being committed - it then becomes clear, the Police are going to where the most crime is being done.
What about fatal shootings? Well, when you factor in the relavent factors (and run a real-world simulation that backs up the data) you see that Police are more hesitant to shoot Black offenders than they are for other races - if anything the fear of a backlash has resulted in 'systemic racism' just the other way around.
But surely, if this was just to do with Race, we could look at other historically marginalized minorities and see how they fair in a supposedly 'systemically racist' system - only problem there is (again referencing the US) Asian Americans are at the top.

This notion of Systemic racism is yet another far-left Marxist derived idea that is propped up by misleading statistics and half-truths and has seeped into our wider culture from Academia.

[pritch]

<snip>
This notion of Systemic racism is yet another far-left Marxist derived idea that is propped up by misleading statistics and half-truths and has seeped into our wider culture from Academia.

That's some alternate world you've constructed. With just a modicum of refinement you'll be able to lose touch with reality completely. You're almost there.

[TheDemonLord]

That's some alternate world you've constructed. With just a modicum of refinement you'll be able to lose touch with reality completely. You're almost there.

Okay Pritch - state your standard of Evidence for you to consider what I've said as true.

I'm sure I can objectively meet it.

[FJRider]

Is it?

Unrestricted compassion is no virtue.

This leads to unrestricted access to funding for a lifestyle that requires no effort.

If the voting (as opposed to those just eligible to vote [but didn't]) majority are the one's receiving that funding ... will the (required) funding get greater or lesser ..??

[FJRider]

Given the current Election result and the EoL bill result (something Christian Conservatives aren't too keen on, something something mortal sin) - how can you say that they are the Moral Majority?

Furthermore - Why the need to bring up Race?


Voter turnout for the 2020 General Election was estimated to be 82.5% of those enrolled as at 6pm Friday 16 October. This compares with a final 79.8% turnout of those enrolled in 2017.

Morals have little to do with elections ... as few vote for their moral rights. "What's in it for ME" is the Kiwi way now.

The big question is ... what group (or race) would be "Likely" to have the the majority percentage of voters .. ?? The group with more to GAIN than already lost (insert: [n]ever had) ... or the group with less to lose .. ??

So ... You don't think a voters RACE would play a part in deciding which group or Political party .. voters would align themselves to .. ??

Perhaps ... try thinking (understatement) what the election results would be ... if there was a 100% turnout for this election ... for all eligible voters.


Although a topic for a thread in it's own right - There are some people that are Poor through no fault of their own - for these people I have the utmost sympathy and do not begrudge my taxes to provide them a safety net and a helping hand to get back on their feet.

I note you said some. But ... when there are 3rd .. 4th ... and 5th generations of families on a welfare benefit ... the "No Fault of their own" part sort of beggars belief on the truth of the "Not my fault I'm poor and out of work" aspect of it all.


There are some people that are Poor through bad choices - for These people, My sympathy levels vary from 'That's unfortunate' to 'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes' - yet for these people I still don't mind providing a safety net and helping them.

Making a poor/bad decision is human. I've made one or two myself ... :pinch: BUT for them to continue to make the same decisions over and over ... and still claim "It's not my fault I'm poor" ... is a little hard to believe.

I myself have been on unemployment and sickness benefits a number of times ... and was always grateful for the help. BUT ... (yep .. always a but) I never saw it as my intended future lifestyle. I took employment (or help) that often led to me being with less money in my pocket than I would have had on a benefit. I never regretted it then or now. The easy options in life are always enticing.

And usually for some ... it's ALWAYS the easy option that is taken.


There are some people who have Mental health issues, that results in them being Poor and especially homeless - How we deal with Mental Health in the Western World is an issue, we should be doing more and doing it smarter to help these people, throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, but neither does ignoring it either.

The "Western world" deal with them (usually) better than in other Eastern and 3rd world nations. Places where Human (and Personal) rights are ignored.

Locking them all up and out of sight is no longer the option in a civilized country ... What do you suggest .. ??

The process of declaring somebody "Mentally ill" is a process with stringent rules. Not a step that should be taken lightly. The subsequent loss of personal legal rights for those declared as such ... has a huge after effect on their family. And naturally ... on the person involved. I've never heard of anybody actually liking being told they're mentally ill. Do you .. ??

Again ... what course of action by Government ... do you suggest .. ??


Then there are some people who either see Welfare as a way-of-life or have been suitably disincentivized from working - and this is where I get a bit annoyed.

I believe that if YOU were a "PERSONAL CHOICE" and legal rights advocate ... you would let THEM decide (Obviously ... YOU are NOT). Be it in their own best interests ... or not. And it seems that if you don't like it ... then the law must change. Sorry ... it doesn't work (excuse the pun) that way.

They have the legal rights to not work. Just as you do if YOU chose to not work. You didn't take that choice. Apparently.

Just because you chose to work ... by no means does it mean ... that they have to.

[FJRider]

That's some alternate world you've constructed. With just a modicum of refinement you'll be able to lose touch with reality completely. You're almost there.

Interesting that a few years ago ... referring to a group of people as "Black" was deemed racist.

Now it seems ... Black lives matter.


What changed .. ??

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting that a few years ago ... referring to a group of people as "Black" was deemed racist.

Now it seems ... Black lives matter.


What changed .. ??

The racists redefined the meaning of the word Racist, declared themselves anti-racists and permeated their ideas into mainstream culture under the guise of benevolence and berating anyone who disagreed with them as Racist.

[TheDemonLord]

So ... You don't think a voters RACE would play a part in deciding which group or Political party .. voters would align themselves to .. ??

I'm sure it does, my contention is that it shouldn't.

Someone who proclaims Maori should vote for the Maori party, I find as distasteful as someone who would proclaim "Whites should vote for the White party"

Identity based politics are a bad idea, for anyone who plays it.


I note you said some. But ... when there are 3rd .. 4th ... and 5th generations of families on a welfare benefit ... the "No Fault of their own" part sort of beggars belief on the truth of the "Not my fault I'm poor and out of work" aspect of it all.

Even for them, I hold a degree of compassion, if living on the Benefit is all they've ever known, how can we expect them to know better? For certain there are ways and means, but I'm still prepared to give them some benefit of the doubt.


Making a poor/bad decision is human. I've made one or two myself ... :pinch: BUT for them to continue to make the same decisions over and over ... and still claim "It's not my fault I'm poor" ... is a little hard to believe.

Sympathy is a non-renewable resource - at some point one has to say "You know what the consequences would be, you did it anyway"



The "Western world" deal with them (usually) better than in other Eastern and 3rd world nations. Places where Human (and Personal) rights are ignored.

Locking them all up and out of sight is no longer the option in a civilized country ... What do you suggest .. ??

The process of declaring somebody "Mentally ill" is a process with stringent rules. Not a step that should be taken lightly. The subsequent loss of personal legal rights for those declared as such ... has a huge after effect on their family. And naturally ... on the person involved. I've never heard of anybody actually liking being told they're mentally ill. Do you .. ??

Again ... what course of action by Government ... do you suggest .. ??

The first step would be to look at the Homeless population - something like a 3rd of them have serious Mental Illness issues. I agree we do better in the West than other places - but I can't help but feel we that there is a better solution for helping people who cannot (through no fault of their own) help themselves.

The big problem as you've alluded to is how to identify people who need help, unable to ask for help and may need to have force levied against them.

Short answer - I've no fucking clue, but it IS an issue that we need to think on.


I believe that if YOU were a "PERSONAL CHOICE" and legal rights advocate ... you would let THEM decide (Obviously ... YOU are NOT). Be it in their own best interests ... or not. And it seems that if you don't like it ... then the law must change. Sorry ... it doesn't work (excuse the pun) that way.

They have the legal rights to not work. Just as you do if YOU chose to not work. You didn't take that choice. Apparently.

Just because you chose to work ... by no means does it mean ... that they have to.

They can decide whatever they want to do...

But the millisecond they make an imposition on a 3rd party (in this case, the Government, or My taxes by proxy) then it's not a Personal Choice issue, It's a negotiation.

If they want to not work, to eschew all the benefits of Society, they are more than welcome to, in fact - people who choose to live isolated in the Bush and off of the land have my utmost respect, but if you want to benefit from Society, that comes at a Cost.

As above - I don't mind my Taxes going to help those less fortunate than me, I do mind when the system is structure in a way that it incentivizes counter-productive behaviour.

[FJRider]

The racists redefined the meaning of the word Racist, declared themselves anti-racists and permeated their ideas into mainstream culture under the guise of benevolence and berating anyone who disagreed with them as Racist.

With the world wide spread of ... and the publicity and popularity of "Black lives Matter" movement ... just who are the ones actually seen as racists now ... ?? Those in and/or supporting the movement ... ???



Or ... those not ... ?? :confused:


Racists themselves usually do believe that it is important that humans are divided into different races. But .. (always a but) .. should not any "Race Issue" be treated instead as a Human Rights issue ?? Bringing "Race" into the argument thusly just makes it Racist.

[FJRider]

I'm sure it does, my contention is that it shouldn't.

Identity based politics are a bad idea, for anyone who plays it.

It DOES play a part in Politics ... hence (as you say) The Maori Party is Legal and (apparently) NOT Racist in name or connotation.


Even for them, I hold a degree of compassion, if living on the Benefit is all they've ever known, how can we expect them to know better? For certain there are ways and means, but I'm still prepared to give them some benefit of the doubt.

Bullshit. Sympathy is a non-renewable resource .... remember. For change to happen ... there must be a WANT to happen a change. There are organizations throughout the country ... ready willing and available FREE to help them. A few do ... most WONT.


Sympathy is a non-renewable resource - at some point one has to say "You know what the consequences would be, you did it anyway"

The recent call by groups (on a benefit) is for a "living wage" while on a benefit. Apparently ... Government funding IS a renewable resource.

Who knew ... ??? :killingme


The first step would be to look at the Homeless population - something like a 3rd of them have serious Mental Illness issues. I agree we do better in the West than other places - but I can't help but feel we that there is a better solution for helping people who cannot (through no fault of their own) help themselves.

Those that want and ask for help ... get it. I'm totally in favour of that. Applying "Help" to those that don't want it ... I am not.


The big problem as you've alluded to is how to identify people who need help, unable to ask for help and may need to have force levied against them.

If you need help ... you walk into a Welfare office ... and ask. (And the Sally Army are there also with a few rules of their own.) There IS a rigorous process to go through with Government agencies ... and lots of questions need to be asked. With lots of jumping through welfare hoops. The system (for want of a better word) isn't brilliant ... or easy. But ... the system such as it is ... IS there.


Short answer - I've no fucking clue

As I expected.

Obviously ... we agree on ONE thing ... :devil2:


But the millisecond they make an imposition on a 3rd party (in this case, the Government, or My taxes by proxy) then it's not a Personal Choice issue, It's a negotiation.

If they want to not work, to eschew all the benefits of Society, they are more than welcome to, in fact - people who choose to live isolated in the Bush and off of the land have my utmost respect, but if you want to benefit from Society, that comes at a Cost.

As above - I don't mind my Taxes going to help those less fortunate than me, I do mind when the system is structure in a way that it incentivizes counter-productive behaviour.

They have their LEGAL right to Government funding ... if the appropriate criteria is met. To deny them that is against their civil and human rights.

Regardless of the point you are trying (unsuccessfully) to make .. that you do not like it.

Suck it up sunshine ... they'll continue doing it for a few more generations yet.

[Drew]

'Black lives matters' as a slogan refers to the unequal human rights afforded to some people over others.

Its a catchy phrase, and anyone using it as a basis for argument is a fucking moron.

[pete376403]

If you need help ... you walk into a Welfare office ... and ask. .
Minor point - you can't walk in to a welfare office anymore (guy in Ashburton saw to that) You have to phone in and make an appointment. If you dont have a phone or the ability to use one then that creates all sorts of problems.

[FJRider]

Minor point - you can't walk in to a welfare office anymore (guy in Ashburton saw to that) You have to phone in and make an appointment. If you dont have a phone or the ability to use one then that creates all sorts of problems.

Various groups like the Salvation army, most churches, citizens advice, and the front desk at a police station can and will help, be it sending them to the right people, or arranging for it to be done.

Any I-site would point them to places that will help.

[jellywrestler]

'Black lives matters' as a slogan refers to the unequal human rights afforded to some people over others.

Its a catchy phrase, and anyone using it as a basis for argument is a fucking moron.

Isn't it a movement for people to get smart TV's and Air Jordans without paying for them?

[FJRider]

Its a catchy phrase, and anyone using it as a basis for argument is a fucking moron.

A link if you need to know more about them. And donate to their cause.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

Unequal human rights are afforded to other race and skin colours in the US .... not just the black ones. Not much is said about them.

From their own declarations ...

As Black Lives Matter, we recognize and affirm the sanctity of all Black lives everywhere in the world.

I could have got it all wrong ... and they're just New Zealand Rugby supporters. But I doubt that is the case.


From Wiki even ...


Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation

Personally ... I like the "Non-violent" bit ... and the "All racially motivated violence against black people" bit. Apparently all/any violence against black people is racially motivated. It has to be ... right .. ??? A black person wouldn't do harm to anybody.

As opposed to your ...


'Black lives matters' as a slogan refers to the unequal human rights afforded to some people over others.


I personally believe that the gaining popularity of the BLM movement ... is more to do with supporters trying to prove they aren't racist if they support the movement.

The BLM is NOT about unequal rights afforded to "Some and not others" ... it is all about one skin colour. Guess which one.

I wonder how the financial support is going from all the popularity and good intentions ... :mellow:

Trump's win or loss in the elections might be a factor in BLM's spread or decline. But ... Plenty of Black people supporting Trump too.

Are you following the US elections ... ??

From the Aussie TAB.

https://www.tab.com.au/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US%20Election

Trump is the favourite.

[Dean]

I’ve got Trump on the nose for the election win.

Good return at $2.35.

[Swoop]

Question: how many non gun owners have shot people?
A lot of gangs don't own guns...

Jesus arse fucking Christ, of course religion comes into it.
Sadly their viewpoint on the E.o.L referendum relates to the religious lot missing out on bleeding people dry emotionally and finacially, rather than being empathetic to the pain and suffering the individual is enduring.
Thankfully sense prevailed in the referendum voting!

'Black lives matters' as a slogan refers to the unequal human rights afforded to some people over others.
It should be called the "end police violence" cause.

[FJRider]

Question: how many non gun owners have shot people?

Legal ownership of a gun is not requirement to kill people with a gun ... you just need to be in possession of one.

Ownership of ... and possession of ... are two totally different situations.

You wont get time off your sentence for being a licensed firearms owner.

[pritch]

A link if you need to know more about them. And donate to their cause.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/



Many people may not be aware of some subtleties within the BLM movement.

During the civil unrest at Ferguson, and other demonstrations following the killing of a black person by the police, slogans like "Hands up don't shoot" and Black lives matter" became popular. Subsequently a group of opportunists registered the name "Black lives matter.' These people were not among the leaders at Ferguson, if they were there at all. They later claimed that the people who were involved in the demonstrations and who started the BLM movement were not members of the movement. This presumably because the activists had not payed a sub to BLM Inc. Naturally the activists were not impressed.

There is still the wider BLM movement, these people support the cause and the slogan, they may have no interest in furthering the financial fortunes of "BLM Inc".

Personally I am sympathetic to the wider movement, but dislike BLM Inc. One good thing the latter may have done was take the attention of law enforcement away from the people actually doing the hard yards.

[Katman]

What the fuck has Black Lives Matter got to do with the cannabis referendum?

[FJRider]

What the fuck has Black Lives Matter got to do with the cannabis referendum?

Just another failed implementation of Government policies ... attracting sporadic public support.

[F5 Dave]

Legal ownership of a gun is not requirement to kill people with a gun ... you just need to be in possession of one.

Ownership of ... and possession of ... are two totally different situations.

You wont get time off your sentence for being a licensed firearms owner.
I dont believe I ever used the word Legal in my question.

But yes it is off topic.