Not Fucking Around Coalition

First topic message reminder :

Move over Boogaloo Bois, stand down Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, make room KKK, there's a new militia in town.  It's called the "Not Fucking Around Coalition" (NFAC).  It's black veterans, blueprinting their group along the lines of white supremacists who perceive their role as protecting white victims.  They carry AR-15's, just like the white supremacists who proport to protect white interests.  They also have been described by news outlets as a “Black militia".

John Fitzgerald Johnson (JFJ), also known as Grand Master Jay and John Jay Fitzgerald Johnson, claims leadership of the group.  He describes NFAC as composed of "ex military shooters."  JFJ has described their character as: "We are a Black militia. We aren't protesters, we aren't demonstrators. We don't come to sing, we don't come to chant. That's not what we do."  

The first reported appearance of NFAC members was a May 12, 2020, protest near Brunswick, Georgia, over the February killing of Ahmaud Arbery.  They were mistakenly identified by local media as "Black Panthers".  The organization denies any connection to the Black Panther Party or Black Lives Matter.

Johnson stated that NFAC provided armed security for the sister of Rayshard Brooks, at her request; NFAC escorted her to a rally in downtown Atlanta in late June.

On the Fourth of July, 2020, local media reported that about 100 to 200 mostly armed NFAC members marched through Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta, Georgia.  The Stone Mountain Memorial Association, which operates the park, stated that the protesters were peaceful and orderly.



Johnson claimed that the formation was a response to a threat by the KKK to start shooting black people at 8:00 pm on the Fourth of July, 2020. Johnson stated: "I want the heart of the Ku Klux Klan to hear me no matter where the fuck you are. I'm in your house. Where you at? You made a threat. We don't threaten."

As the Court says, the issues are framed.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The best way to follow that instinct is to outlaw guns.  It precludes the harm before it starts.

Yeah, because mankind never managed to smote thousands of each other prior to the invention of gunpowder.  

So? Deal with that problem when it comes along. Right now, the fact is that handguns and long rifles are being used to kill children, or anyone who happens to be in the proximity.

How do you take a claim for life up to the Supreme Court when you're dead?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, because mankind never managed to smote thousands of each other prior to the invention of gunpowder.  

So?  Deal with that problem when it comes along.  Right now, the fact is that handguns and long rifles are being used to kill children, or anyone who happens to be in the proximity.

How do you take a claim for life up to the Supreme Court when you're dead?

Haven't we already covered my position in terms of needless killing?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So?  Deal with that problem when it comes along.  Right now, the fact is that handguns and long rifles are being used to kill children, or anyone who happens to be in the proximity.

How do you take a claim for life up to the Supreme Court when you're dead?

Haven't we already covered my position in terms of needless killing?

It's ambiguous. There are so many unknowns to your assumptions, that you could easily end up on the wrong side: too many misjudgments; too many mistakes. I don't think you have announced a universal, acceptable standard...but then again, I don't think one can formulate a universally acceptable standard with guns. Somewhere, something is going to go wrong.

It's best if guns were not allowed in the hands of ordinary people.

In England, ordinary people dont own or carry guns.
And ordinary people here do not and cannot shoot other people.
Ever.

Andy wrote:In England, ordinary people dont own  or carry guns.
And ordinary people here do not and cannot shoot other people.
Ever.

My point exactly. I think the British people are the model when it comes to conflict resolution without resort to the finality of guns. But then, they have the advantage of reasonable people; here, we have the south.

Andy wrote:In England, ordinary people dont own  or carry guns.
And ordinary people here do not and cannot shoot other people.
Ever.

Of course not. Ordinary people aren't like the special people.

"Special people" being law enforcement officers and military personnel.  "Ordinary people" being all others.

Original Quill wrote:"Special people" being law enforcement officers and military personnel.  "Ordinary people" being all others.

Yeah, like the special people that loaded ordinary people into box cars.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:"Special people" being law enforcement officers and military personnel. "Ordinary people" being all others.

Yeah, like the special people that loaded folks into box cars.

Yes, on the political side people can become dangerous, as well. That is why you carry with you, always, a strong moral gauge.

Libertarianism carries as much potential for immoral behavior, only it is on the private side. The gangs in Central America are non-governmental, and they also "load folks into" boxes, if not “boxcars”.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, like the special people that loaded folks into box cars.

Yes, on the political side people can become dangerous, as well.  That is why you carry with you, always, a strong moral gauge.

Libertarianism carries as much potential for immoral behavior, only it is on the private side.  The gangs in Central America are non-governmental, and they also "load folks into" boxes, if not “boxcars”.  

The non governmental folks in Central America own the government folks.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, on the political side people can become dangerous, as well.  That is why you carry with you, always, a strong moral gauge.

Libertarianism carries as much potential for immoral behavior, only it is on the private side.  The gangs in Central America are non-governmental, and they also "load folks into" boxes, if not “boxcars”.  

The non governmental folks in Central America own the government folks.  

Right...only it's much more to the point to describe it as: what happens inevitably when you pursue libertarianism.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The non governmental folks in Central America own the government folks.  

Right...only it's much more to the point to describe it as: what happens inevitably when you pursue libertarianism.

That's cronyism.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right...only it's much more to the point to describe it as: what happens inevitably when you pursue libertarianism.

That's cronyism.  

No, it isn't. It is the lawlessness of weak, or non-existent government that creates the opportunity for private gangs and other anti-social movements to evolve.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's cronyism.  

No, it isn't.  It is the lawlessness of weak, or non-existent government that creates the opportunity for private gangs and other anti-social movements to evolve.

Wrong. It's Cronyism.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, it isn't.  It is the lawlessness of weak, or non-existent government that creates the opportunity for private gangs and other anti-social movements to evolve.

Wrong. It's Cronyism.

Nonsense.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Wrong. It's Cronyism.

Nonsense.

Nah brah.

It's a fact.