Advertisements
Home

Racism And Guns: Why The Left Keeps Painting Gun Owners As Racist

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The media know their lies will be believed because people are too lazy to investigate and find out the truth about gun owners.

A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

― Mark Twain

Gun owners get an awful rap in the modern media. While it’s fine for a Hollywood action hero to be loaded down with guns, the average citizen who does so is a ticking time bomb in their world. It’s worse with the news media, which routinely paints gun owners as being every kind of bigot imaginable. Recently, Bearing Arms has run two stories where this has come up. The first one, anti-gunners were trying to paint pro-gun folks as racists. The second, run just this weekend, liberal gun folks talked about the NRA’s supposedly “racist” policies.

Now, we all know this isn’t true. Gun owners are incredibly open to new folks, regardless of ethnicity. We love seeing new people shoot. Race is irrelevant for the vast majority of us.

I’m not saying there are no racist gun owners because we’re not some monolithic group, but you’ll have a far easier time finding racists at the Democratic National Convention than at the NRA’s annual meeting.

And that, my friends, is why the left tries to paint gun owners as the racists.

By now, many pro-Second Amendment advocates and activists understand the racist roots of gun control in this country. Even the more mainstream political site, The Hill, understands it.

One month after the Confederate surrender in 1865, Frederick Douglass urged federal action to stop state and local infringement of the right to arms. Until this was accomplished, Douglass argued, “the work of the abolitionists is not finished.”

Indeed, it was not. As the Special Report of the Paris Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867 found, freedmen in some southern states “were forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assault.” Thus, white supremacists could continue to control freedmen through threat of violence.

Congress demolished these racist laws. The Freedmen’s Bureau Bill of 1865Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Civil Rights Act of 1870 each guaranteed all persons equal rights of self-defense. Most importantly, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, made the Second Amendment applicable to the states.

Because of the 14th Amendment, gun control laws now had to be racially neutral. But states quickly learned to draft neutrally-worded laws for discriminatory application. Tennessee and Arkansas prohibited handguns that freedmen could afford, while allowing expensive “Army & Navy” handguns, which ex-Confederate officers already owned.

The South Carolina law against concealed carry put blacks in chain gangs, but whites only paid a small fine, if anything. In the early 20th century, such laws began to spread beyond the ex-Confederacy. An Ohio Supreme Court Justice acknowledged that such statutes reflected “a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the Negro.”

 

The anti-gun left paints gun owners in general, and the NRA in particular, as racist because they don’t want anyone to see their own racist past. They’re the mean kid in school who picks on everyone so nobody will look too closely at their own flaws.

Unfortunately, most folks who don’t know the gun culture don’t realize that no, we’re not a bunch of racist rednecks. They don’t understand that we’re just good folks who want to protect ourselves and our families.

They might know an individual gun owner or two who they don’t think of a racist, but the media paints a picture that makes it easy for the average American to believe those are the exception, not the rule. The anti-gun left likes it that way because it makes it easier to disarm law-abiding gun owners if the rank and file voter thinks we’re all hood-wearing Klansmen.

Meanwhile, they hide the racism in their past all while still trying to keep inner city blacks from obtaining weapons to protect themselves.

They’ll paint us a racist because

Advertisements

Yet Another Anti-Gun Bill Lands on California Governor’s Desk

3 Comments

H/T Bearing Arms.

I do not have any doubt Governor Moonbeam Brown will sign this anti gun bill. 

 

Yet another anti-gun bill has landed on California Governor Jerry Brown’s desk this month. This time, lawmakers are hoping to reinforce the firearms ban on elementary and secondary school campuses.

In 1995, the state passed the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which prohibits any person from knowingly bringing a firearm into a public school zone. In 2015, the act was amended so that superintendents could grant CCW permit holders permission to carry on school grounds if they had reason to believe their life was in danger. The goal was to ensure victims of domestic abuse always had a way to protect themselves.

However, if Gov. Brown approves the new measure, known as AB 424, school administrators will no longer be able to grant exemptions and the blanket ban on firearms will be reinstated.

Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), the primary author of the bill, said superintendents “exploited” their power by allowing too many faculty and staff members the ability to carry.

“This was not the intent of the bill passed a few years ago,” McCarty told the Associated Press back in May. “Research shows allowing more guns in schools makes them less safe.”

Unsurprisingly, McCarty didn’t specify what “research” he was referring to.

Similarly, the Assemblyman told the LA Times this month, “The risk of having something bad happen with that firearm is greater than the reward.”

Of course, 2A advocates, including the NRA and Republican lawmakers, strongly disagree.

“You are not keeping people safe by doing this,” Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) told the LA Times. “You are taking away people’s rights and you are taking away people’s ability to defend themselves.”

Let’s hope Gov. Brown comes to this realization and effectively kills the bill. Not holding our breath for poor California, though.

Sheriff Has Strong Message for Gun Grabbers After School Shooting

2 Comments

H/T Conservative Tribune.

How long before Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich comes under fire from the left for his insightful comments?

 

Guns cause violence and don’t belong in the hands of Americans. At least, that’s the message spread by liberals and the media, but one sheriff in Washington state just pushed back against the anti-gun narrative with a strong message of his own.

Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich gave a detailed news conference on Thursday, and made it clear that going after gun ownership wouldn’t stop violence.

The sheriff’s politically incorrect, pro-gun speech came shortly after a 15-year-old student carried out a school shooting in Spokane. One student was shot dead, while three others were wounded but are expected to recover.

I can tell you, folks, I carried a gun all my life. I hunted, I shot. My friends and I…It’s huntin’ season back home. When I was in high school, every one of those rigs in the high school parking lot had a gun in the gun rack,” Knezovich explained, according to KREM News.

“Why? We went huntin’ on the way home. None of those guns ever walked into a school. None of those guns ever shot anybody,” he continued.

“What’s the difference? Did the gun change? Or did you, as a society, change?

“I’ll give ya odds that it was you, as a society, because you started glorifying cultures of violence. You glorified the gang culture, you glorified games that actually give you points for raping and killing people. The gun didn’t change, we changed.”

In addition to calling out the modern shifts in society that romanticize violence, Knezovich also pointed a finger squarely at out-of-touch politicians.

Lawmakers on “both the right and the left, you’re both enamored by radicalized hate,” he stated, echoing similar statements that President Donald Trump made after the violence last month in Charlottesville, Virginia. “You seem to hate everybody and everything. It’s time for you to end that too.”

At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for violence lies with the person pulling the trigger. With that said, the sheriff is right on target about the overall problem: There’s a cultural reason that school shooters decide to harm others, and it has very little to do with the actual gun.

H/T Gateway Pundit

NJ Candidates Use Scare Tactics Over Gun Range Opening

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

One more reason not to go to the communist state of New Jersey.

One of the challenges many shooters throughout this country face isn’t buying a gun. With the exception of a handful of states, a purchase is relatively straightforward. A bit of a pain in the rear, but straightforward.

No, the issue many face is finding a convenient place to shoot.

In Wayne, NJ, capitalism looks to take care of that thanks to the opening of an indoor gun range.

Unfortunately, despite local leaders signing off on the plan to open the range, Democrats running for state office are latching onto this as an issue and are wanting to block the opening of the range.

Three Democratic state legislative candidates have denounced a gun range that will be built on Route 23 South, saying a loophole in state law gives people easy access to firearms.

The Planning Board Aug. 28 approved a state-of-the-art gun range with 15 shooting stalls on the former Fuddruckers property. No variance was required so residents within 200 yards of the facility did not have to be notified of the application.

State Legislative District 40 candidates Paul Vagianos, Christine Ordway and Thomas Duch have come out against the shooting range.

At issue are what these candidates claim is a lack of safety precautions that will protect residents in the range’s area.

You see, anyone with a valid license will be able to rent a firearm for use at the range after watching a gun safety video. To these candidates, that’s insufficient because…well, because.

“Municipalities should not approve any gun ranges until Trenton closes this loophole,” Ordway said in a statement. “We must take steps to protect our residents with more than a short safety video.”

Bear in mind that these rentals won’t be taken from the range. They’ll be under the supervision of trained safety personnel at all times in addition to the video. They’ll be indoors, thus making it far less likely for a stray round to actually do anything with the neighborhood around the range.

In short, there’s no loophole. Ordway and her fellow candidates are simply grasping at straws because they’re part of the crowd that thinks guns are bad.

The problem is, these candidates are getting in the way of gun education. People learn how to safely handle firearms at gun ranges. The four rules of firearm safety aren’t complicated. They don’t require an all day class in order for reasonable people to understand them. But there’s more to handling a firearm than learning to keep the booger hook off the bang switch and not to flash folks with your muzzle. Those are the things learned on a range.

The fact is that these three candidates haven’t presented any real evidence that anyone is in danger. While the article notes that a couple of people committed suicide at a range last year and that six people have been hurt on New Jersey gun ranges between September 2014 and July 2016–which seems like an awfully arbitrary date range to me–it misses a couple of points.

Primarily, six accidental injuries in two years are easily six too many, but it lacks any scale. How many people were using New Jersey gun ranges during that period? While it’s difficult to tell, it’s not hard to estimate that out of tens of thousands of shooters who used gun ranges in New Jersey, the idea of six injuries is still a fairly low rate.

Further, there’s no information indicating that any of these injuries took place outside of the range, which is what these candidates are kvetching about.

While shooting has some inherent dangers, so does everything else in life. The Wayne, NJ range is doing what it can to mitigate those dangers. Too bad politicians looking to score points with a firearm-ignorant electorate can’t see the reality of what they’re doing.

Or do they see it and just simply not care?

Hat tip: Cam & Company.

Little-Known Group Aims to End Private Gun Sales (and More) in Ohio (and Beyond)

3 Comments

H/T Oath Keepers.

This sounds like a case of wolves in sheep’s clothing so to speak.

Who are these guys? And how serious of a threat do they represent?

Proposed Ohio ballot initiative would require background checks for all gun sales,” NBC4i Columbus reported Thursday. “The newly formed group calling itself ‘Ohioans for Gun Safety’ says they want ‘common sense’ background checks to stem the number of gun deaths.” They’re looking at how they can make that happen politically through a ballot intiative.

“Newly formed”?  Who are these guys?

It’s essential to know who you’re up against.

Do they have big backers? Do they have the resources to run a professional PR campaign, buy TV time and become a credible threat?  Can we follow the money, assuming there is any?

Ohioans for Gun Safety is still pretty obscure, so we need to work a bit to find out who’s behind them. I’m going to go through the steps I took in the hope that it may turn some reading this on to things you can do to check out hostiles making noises about going after our rights.

The first thread I pull is to try to see who is behind their website. In this case it’s registered by proxy, so that doesn’t help. And as a new group, they don’t yet appear on the Guidestar nonprofit information resource, so I don’t see anything about officers, revenues, tax filings/financials and the like.

Dead ends are a routine part of the process.

Next, because they are an Ohio group, I go to the Secretary of State’s corporate listing – that’s how Bloomberg’s infiltration of the states was first discovered and reported. Doing that let me find the Articles of Incorporation. They in turn listed an agent and an address, both of which pointed to a Columbus law firm.

So we know they’re setting up professionally, and in earnest.

And the organization’s “Groundbreaker” list provided plenty of names of members who have left internet trails to follow, many of them leading, along with an acknowledgment to the Cleveland chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women. They’re into all things “social justice” with a special place in their hearts for citizen disarmament – what my friend and founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the late Aaron Zelman, deemed “bagel brained.”

The group’s IRS filing says “NJW is a grassroots org of volunteers and advocates who turn progressive ideas into action,”  and its 2016 “end of year” assets is just short of $16M.

They can do some damage with that, above and beyond the $31K the NBC4i report says they’ve collected to date via “house parties.” Meaning gun owners had best be aware of their presence and intentions, and prepared to counter the anticipated disinformation campaign that will surely accompany their ballot initiative effort.

Nothing this group does will prevent future victims like this man’s son.

In this case, going back to the NBC4i report, they offer nothing new and plenty that can be disputed, starting with the chosen face of their effort, a man whose son was murdered, and wants to do something to keep anyone else from suffering as he has.

That’s a noble desire. Every decent person can agree with that goal and sympathize with his loss. That said, the group he’s being exploited by doesn’t stand a chance of achieving that goal with their co-called “background check” bill.

His son’s murderer, with “prior drug convictions,” did not obey existing “gun control” laws ostensibly put in place to prevent people like him from even possessing a gun, let alone carrying one — and let alone then using it to hunt down another human being and execute him. What “law” could possibly compel compliant behavior on the part of monsters?

Besides, no less an authority than the National Institute of Justice concluded:

“Universal background checks … Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring registration…”

So it’s not just “background checks” they want? But they’ll take that beachhead if they can and then use it as the launch point for their next incursion?

Lather, rinse, repeat, and with each gain decry the lack of “common sense gun laws” and accuse “the gun lobby” of refusing to “compromise.” And assure everybody that no one is talking about taking their guns.

Watch this group.  Chances are nothing may come of it, at least in Ohio as things are at the present (and with only a handful of Facebook and Twitter followers). But you never know, and you never know how quickly things can change, especially now that the media has noticed and is helping them appear to be more than they are.

And watch for similar efforts emerging where you live. When they do, start pulling threads to gather intel on who they are, and on their alliances, capabilities and strength.

 

H&K Announce It Will No Longer Sell Weapons To This Country Among ,Others

2 Comments

H/T Bearing Arms.

H&K better realize they are alienating may American gun owners as we proudly stand with Israel.

Heckler & Koch make some fine quality firearms. Few people disagree with that statement. However, many of us in the gun community have wondered if they actually give a flying flip about civilian gun owners. A buddy of mine once referred to them as the most anti-gun owner gun company in the world.

I don’t know that I’d go that far, but I will say that for a company that’s wanting a bigger chunk of U.S. market share, the latest move by the company might not be the way to go.

Heckler & Koch, the German weapons manufacturer whose guns are estimated to have killed more than 2 million people since the company was founded in 1949, has quietly adopted the most ethical sales policy of any gunmaker in the world.

The company has pledged no longer to sell arms into warzones or to countries that violate corruption and democracy standards, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, or any African countries.

Though never officially announced, the new strategy was included in Heckler & Koch’s latest yearly financial report, and confirmed at an annual general meeting in August. A spokesman said that the firm had “withdrawn from the crisis regions of this world”.

Heckler & Koch – sometimes called Germany’s deadliest company by activists – said it would now sell only to “green countries,” which it defined according to three criteria: membership of Nato or “Nato-equivalent” (Japan, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand); Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index; and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index.

Look, almost no one gives a damn if H&K refuses to sell to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia. No one really cares if they refuse to sell to any nation in Africa.

Yet American gun owners, the very people who create the U.S. civilian market that H&K supposed wants deeper penetration into, are typically conservative politically and tend to stand behind Israel. The idea of cutting off the West’s one faithful ally in a deeply troubled region won’t sit well with many in the firearms community.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the Israelis are losing sleep over this announcement. They have local companies that make pretty good weapons as it is. (Disclosure: I lust for a Tavor.) The lack of H&K firearms is probably not going to have much of an impact on Israel as a nation.

That’s not the point for many, however. Instead, they see it as a tacit endorsement of the left’s anti-Israeli rhetoric which presents the state as a rogue actor and oppressor of innocent Palestinians who do nothing wrong. Those rockets that fly out of Palestine are irrelevant, as are the countless terrorist attacks Israel has endured through the years.

The reality that H&K would do well to accept is that American gun owners, as a general rule, stand with Israel. If they want to eat deeper into a market dominated by companies like Smith & Wesson and Glock, it’s probably not a good idea to alienate that market by refusing to sell guns to a country that has that market’s support.

Urban Myth: Crime Doesn’t Pay – California City Authorizes Stipends to Gang Members

1 Comment

H/T The NRA/ILA.

Only liberals could be this stupid.

Gang members profit through criminal enterprises in a variety of ways: drug, weapon and human trafficking; theft, robbery, intimidation and extortion, and various kinds of fraud. In a win-win for gangbangers, material gains from criminality in one California municipality will soon include government-sanctioned payola.

In a special meeting on August 29, the nine-member City Council of Sacramento unanimously agreed to allocate $1.5 million in funding and to move forward with a “gun-violence reduction strategy” that will include cash payments (“LifeMAP milestone allowances”) and paid vacations for the handful of gang members suspected of committing the majority of gang-related gun crimes in the city.

The report and funding agreement before the council indicate that the program, the “Peacemaker Fellowship,” is to be implemented by a group called Advance Peace. It proposes to reduce gang violence through “transformational opportunities to young adults identified as most likely to be” involved in “gun violence” and by ensuring “greater connectivity to culturally competent human, social, and economic opportunities” for these individuals. The details, as fleshed out during the council meeting, were that participants will be selected from a small group of gang members thought to be behind the “re-cyclical and retaliatory” gun crimes in the community. Among other things, program participants will be required to identify and commit to “LifeMAP goals” (academic aspirations, or more basic things like “getting a driver’s license or improving their relationship with their parents or their kids”). As part of “incentivizing achievement,” the program’s “touchpoints” include “Transformative Travel” and cash stipends for participants. The cost associated with each participant tops out at an estimated $30,000.

The four-year agreement requires the city to pay $500,000 over the course of two years, starting this year. Implementation will consist of two 18-month segments, with 50 participants in each segment. The expected “outcomes” listed in the report are a reduction in firearm assaults and firearm-related homicides by 50 percent” over the four years, “reduc[ing] by $26 million the government costs associated with gun violence,” and the dismantling of “gang war zones within and around the City.”

At the meeting, only one council member, Angelique Ashby, raised significant concerns with the agreement and the authorizing resolution. Among these deficiencies, she noted that out of the “many, many numbers” referenced in the proposal, including “$26 million in government savings,” there was “not one citation” to explain or substantiate these references. The agreement was “front loaded with the cash,” with all of the funding paid out in the first two years but with “zero outcomes” due until year three, meaning the city had no payments that it could withhold if there was a default in performance. More generally, nothing allowed the city to terminate the agreement if the benchmarks and goals weren’t met, which was complicated further by the fact that the goals (like an initial reduction of 20 percent in gun-related assaults and homicides) had no clearly defined baseline or starting point against which performance would be measured. The agreement start and end dates were left blank; the only “quantifiable dates” in the contract were the dates on which the payments by the city had to be made. Nowhere was there a requirement that the program be coordinated with local law enforcement or schools. And despite an assumption that Advance Peace was going to “match” the city funding with an equal amount, this obligation wasn’t documented in the agreement wording.

Determined to waste not a moment, the council rejected councilor Ashby’s request for a one-week delay to address these concerns, although it agreed to incorporate some changes. 

A much more fundamental problem – considering the whole premise is a reduction in gang-related violence – is that nothing in the agreement or resolution requires fellowship participants to make a commitment to forego violence and forsake their gang lifestyle as a condition of participation, or mandates withholding payments and other incentives from participants who commit violent crimes or are charged or convicted of criminal offenses. While fellowship participants will be evaluated for “new gun charges/arrests” as part of the overall benchmarking reports, this doesn’t extend to criminal charges more generally, or operate as a disqualification. A participant who is paid council-approved funds for accomplishing his “LifeMAP goal” of getting a driver’s license is under no agreement-imposed impediment against using that license to facilitate other criminal acts.  

One law enforcement official – Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones – points out the program may actually shield participants who commit crimes. “They do not engage in law enforcement at all, and I have been told that if they become aware of one of the participants committing crime, they will NOT notify law enforcement.”

This funding is not just “counter-intuitive,” it is simply wrong. Apart from the most obvious, glaring lack of anything in the agreement that conditions payments on “good behavior” and a repudiation of gang violence, the perception is this “incentivizing” is compensation for lawbreakers that weakens respect for the law and the criminal justice system. Heather MacDonald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, calls it “an absolute abdication of the law and of the moral authority of the law, and a perfect example of defining deviance down…I mean, you’re basically holding the state hostage.”

These misgivings might arguably be overlooked if there was some guarantee that the spending program significantly reduced gang violence over an appreciable period of time. City residents looking for assurances that their taxpayer funds are being spent wisely will find little in the Council Report. Its lengthy recital of statistics, percentages and cost savings omits, surprisingly, information on the merits and success of this and similar programs. The government bureaucracy may be just as well served, in terms of reducing gang crime and violence in Sacramento, by giving the same participants a bus ticket and $20,000 to stay out of the city. 

Residents who aren’t gang member fellowship recipients will have to wait and see. Unfortunately for them, at the same time that the Sacramento City Council embarks on this bold new program to assist “hard-to-reach” residents to escape crime and violence in their communities, lawmakers across the state continue their efforts to prevent law-abiding Californians from doing the same through the exercise of their Second Amendment rights (here and here and here).

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: