Bob supplies rhetoric questioning whether a nightstick is actually a weapon. How many people have you seen walking around with nightsticks lately, Bob, outside of law enforcement? Are there, like, special holsters people buy to carry their nightsticks while in public? Do bars and businesses have "check in your nightstick" rooms where people can place them, such a coat rooms? Can nightsticks be used by people who limp? I suppose so although a person using Shabazz's nightstick as a cane would not have been over 18 inches tall. Bob would go to such lengths as to bring hangings, tar and featherings and all sorts of atrocities from the past to make some kind of a point. Is his point is that blacks can act any way they want because they were mistreated in the past, why not just excuse all blacks from following any laws?
Denise, I asked you about how it was defined in PA law, not in Wikipedia, since you were trying to make your comment sound as though it had legal backing, and was made with the weight of PA law behind it. Perhaps you weren't doing so, and were simply shooting from the hip, as Wikipedia has done here.
A two foot long or so police baton or Billy club or nightstick is not same thing as a nine inch long blackjack. "Cosh" is the English slang for blackjack, and the word "sap" has also been used, although these two instruments don't have the spring loaded feature you will often find in a blackjack. You can make a cosh or a sap simply by putting a few handsful of sand in the end of a sock and wetting it down. You don't even need to have any rigidity to it at all; the function is that of a weight swung on the end of a rope or chain or piece of fabric or the like. The slightly longer version, cane length, in Japanese, is called a jo, and the six foot long version is called a bo. Each weapon is different, has different characteristics, has different uses, and requires different skills.
I don't know a lot about firearms. I do know a bit about sticks and knives and swords, though I'm seriously short of any skill level.
As for you, Mike:
Bob supplies rhetoric questioning whether a nightstick is actually a weapon.
Show me where I said that or say straight out that you were distorting my comments, Mike.
I said that a nightstick was not the same thing as a blackjack, despite the silly thing that wikipedia said here. If you've done any police-work, you should be able to tell the difference on sight, every time. Both are weapons, as you know. As you know, blackjacks can usually be hidden away in a coat pocket or a standard pants pocket while nightsticks must have special pockets built into uniforms for them or must have special rigs for placing them onto a belt.
Bob would go to such lengths as to bring hangings, tar and featherings and all sorts of atrocities from the past to make some kind of a point.
Well, yes, Bob certainly would.
You see, when Denise is chucking around the concept of "racism" so easily in terms of how Blacks are talking about others, I thought it might be useful to remind Denise exactly what it was that defined the Black Experience with "racism." Was that untoward of me? To set some sort of understanding of what the term in real life terms?
I thought I was being concrete and practical.
I thought, you see, that with all this talk about equality that Denise was bringing up, that she would want the experience of racism to be defined the same way for whites as it is for blacks. Any degree of racism is unacceptable, mind you, but to talk about the NAACP of all organizations being racist sort of takes the cake. The NAACP has had to fight for every inch of progress its made, including in education, and the right to have integrated housing, the right to have an integrated medical system — blacks have died for lack of transfusions available at white only hospitals. Intermarriage was forbidden until recently, and the slurs have certainly not stopped.
We might also talk some time about the legal system. I mentioned earlier other things that are quite fresh in Black memory, and are certainly fresh in mine. They happened in my lifetime, and they happened in Mike's lifetime. They are racism.
Tell me how what Denise is complaining about is racism like that.
It's worth complaining about. It's worth seeking a remedy for.
It's also worth keeping a very firm perspective on, such as I believe has gone by, here.
Is his point is that blacks can act any way they want because they were mistreated in the past, why not just excuse all blacks from following any laws?
It is Bob's point to remind whoever wishes to read what Bob says that racism continues to be an active element in the politics of the far Right. That Rush Limbaugh thinks nothing of saying that the President of the United States would not have been elected if he weren't Black. That while the entire episode that we are talking about here is being framed as a matter of the Obama administration, it was an occurrence of the last election cycle and was dealt with under the previous administration, though the elements of racism are clear in its being brought up now and its being blamed on a Black President and a Black Attorney General.
Mike's proposal that we not hold blacks responsible for obeying any law is a red herring, albeit a particularly noisome one. The question is why does the country countenance attacks on Blacks now simply because we have a Black President. Why is what Mr. Limbaugh said not denounced by those who follow him so avidly?
The only reason that I can think of that makes any sense to me at all is that they agree with him, and what that says about the quality of thinking in this country is stupefying, and what it says about the amount of racism in this country is horrifying, regardless of what your evaluation of President Obama as a President.
And there, I think, are your real race politics.