No, it's called common damn sense.

So if you think you're full of common sense - are the DC schools racist or not?  If not, why are black kids quitting more than white kids?

One day you gon' realize that IF Black people all in solidarity one day just said "Fuck it!" that America wouldn't be able to hold up her panties anymore and we could force the economic tables to turn - because that's really what its been all about, use and control of resources.

That's f***ing racist.

I doubt very strongly that anyone could have just looked at your father and known right off that he was Irish.  No doubt the brogue gave him away.  His kids probably didn't have it and could pass for whatever.  Those of African ethnicity didn't exactly have that advantage.

Yes, it didn't happen when they looked at him, it happened when he spoke.  My grandfather still had a touch of it and my grandmother  sometimes slipped into polish.  My father was born in New Jersey and had a different accent and a different kind of bias when he went to school in Greenville, SC. 

I'm for us not hearing more complaints and start hearing recommendations for solutions.

Poverty and income differences between black families and white families?  How about comparing that to HS and college graduations?  More white people attend and graduate HS and college, so you would expect college graduates to make more money.

WHY do more white people graduate HS and college? Now you're getting somewhere.  DC is one of the worst where 86% of white students graduate high school but only 58% of black students do.  Are DC schools institutionally racist or are black students dropping out of school?  Where does the fault lie?

I also think that when white people experience racism, we write it off.  Black people write it down.  Yes, I live in the south and when I'm out I experience racism pretty much daily in some form.

But I don't really care.  My family has only been here about 100 years and we've dealt with our own racism.  Nobody would hire my great-grandfather, the Mick, so he opened his own business, a bar and worked his way up.  My grandfather worked that bar his whole life and pretty much went from working there to dying in the hospital from cancer.  My grandmother was from polish mine workers, slaves to the company store - it's not just a song, it's family history.  I was only the third fourth in my family to go to college and the first to go to graduate school. 

How did we do it - work.  It's four letter word.

The role of the Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer of the United States. The White House Counsel's office is the President's lawyer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel

There is a difference.

And the White House Counsel is not even the president's lawyer.  There is no attorney client privilege there either, the counsel is an advisor on legal matters. 

I'm not in favor of anyone losing their rights without due process.

I'm not in favor of terrorists or those who are mentally ill of having weapons but that must first be adjudicated by the proper authority, which is a court.

I'm not trying to twist this - can you see my confusion?  You state once "not in favor of anyone losing their rights", but then "not in favor of terrorists...having weapons".   

I get the due process part of what you say, but I even said there was a due process part and you still disagreed.  So you ARE in favor of terrorists and others losing their rights when declared by a court.  I propose that the militia clause of the Constitution is the constitutional way to do that.  Of course there has to be due process involved. 

You disagree on what is essentially agreement, so it just comes across to me as you wanting to disagree. 

outside of a select few people in the U.S., who can actually afford that? It's also not something a single person can use.

If we put a $19,000 tax on ARs and raise the price of to $20,000, you'd be ok with effectively banning them?  Because outside a select few, who can afford that?

My answer is that sniper rifles, tanks, airplanes ships and nuclear weapons are strategic, they are political weapons.  There are political consequences to their use.  War is diplomacy continued by other means, a private citizen is not authorized to conduct diplomacy.

Where did I say anything about terrorists or mentally ill?
...
I'm not in favor of anyone losing their rights without due process.

You're not in favor of anyone, including terrorist and the mentally ill, losing their gun rights without due process.  You understand how I make the leap to you supporting terrorists and the mentally ill having guns, right? 

And yes, I am a little caught up on the militia since it's keenly intertwined with the 2nd Amendment.  If you want to say it's an absolute then should anyone be able to have a .50 sniper rifle?  Tank?  Nuclear hand grenade?  B2?  SR-71?

I have answers for these but I'd like to hear yours.