The Audacity of Gun Control?
Nick Gillespie | February 4, 2008, 7:33am
Gun historian Clayton Cramer, whose work helped to unmask Michael Bellesiles as a massive fraud, minces no words regarding Barack Obama's position toward gun rights:
He was here in Boise over the weekend for a rally, and emphasized that he is not trying to take anyone's guns. He's a liar. It isn't just that he supports bans on semiautomatics, and more possession and purchase restrictions. He claims that he wants more laws to keep guns out of the inner cities. Why? Does he think black people lack the sense that white people have?
He was a member of the board of the Joyce Foundation, the primary funder of extreme gun control measures in the United States. And he claims that he isn't trying to disarm Americans?
He's a liar, through and through.
More here.
This seems a bit arch to me, and I'm curious as to how Obama's positions match up with those of Clinton, McCain, and Romney. How much of a role will gun rights play in the election?
Untermensch | February 4, 2008, 9:51am | #
Fluffy, I'm going to guess that you leave most arguments thinking you've won while you're opponents just leave scratching their heads and wondering why the hell they bothered talking to you...
The fact that blacks bear the brunt of them is, for most proponents in the population, epiphenomenal.You know what? This is BS.
So the only reason why they fear guns is because they are racist? Somehow I just don't buy it... I don't deny there is a racial component at all, but the soccer mom would want to have guns out of the hands of skinhead gangs or white thugs just as much as blacks. If most of the "criminals" she sees are black (for whatever reason), then the association
is epiphenomenal. She doesn't fear guns in the hands of blacks
because they are black. She fears guns in the hands of
criminals, most of whom (rightly or wrongly) she sees as minorities. That doesn't mean that she wants to control guns to control minorities at all, even if the effect is disproportionately on them.
The symbolism of the criminal with an "illegal" gun is incredibly racially charged.
Did I say it wasn't? But the racial charge may not be the only, or even primary, motivator, but rather an effect of the experience people have.
your average soccer mom who supports gun control does so out of fear of crime. The association of crime with blacks and hispanics in her mind isn't the root cause for the fear of crime though.
That's absolutely not true.
How do you know that this is "absolutely not true"? I fear being murdered (as an abstract, not because of any real threats to my life), but that fear has nothing to do with who might do it. The root cause is that I don't want to be murdered. You're going to have an uphill battle arguing that people fear crime because it is associate with minorities rather than because it's damned unpleasant.
Every politician who talks about gun control is running a rhetorical Willie Horton ad. It's just OK to do that if you're a Democrat. If the parties switched gun control positions, you can be absolutely sure that the Republican position would be portrayed in the progressive blogosphere as being fundamentally Atwateresque.
Actually, I see plenty of politicians who don't mention a racial angle and just say thing about wanting to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I disagree with their policies, and I agree that there is a racial component, but not everyone out there who wants to ban guns or keep them away from "criminals" is doing it because they are racists. Some of them are looking at the very real effects of crime in their communities and coming to the wrong solution about how to prevent it. But that doesn't ipso facto make them racists.
I hate to say it fluffy, but your arguments show that sometimes your friend is your worst enemy. If you got to debate a gun control proponent in a public arena and spouted off about the gun control buy being a racist and everyone who supports gun control being a racist, you would do more harm to your cause than good. I'm sorry to say it, because I agree with your goals, but that's the way I see it.
LarryA | February 4, 2008, 10:02am | #
Virtually all "gun control" measures in the USA are racist or culturalist at their roots (anti black, or anti irish).
joe may have bit his upper lip off, but I still don't see it. Explain it, for people like me who are dense.
For an example, look at the New York City licensing scheme. “Anyone” can get a license to own a firearm or to carry one (or to carry pepper spray, it’s the same process) provided the authorities in NYC think they “need” to have the license.
It turns out that only wealthy people who are politically connected, almost all white, and almost all male “need” a license. I.e. publishers of anti-gun newspapers “need” licenses to carry, Nigerian cab drivers do not.
Similar results obtain nationwide if you look at other “discretionary” gun licensing schemes.
If
any other government process produced the obviously discriminatory results of discretionary gun licensing the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, AARP, NOW, and every other rights group would bury it in lawsuits. But apparently it’s okay to discriminate in the service of gun control.
As for soccer moms, I’m seeing more and more of them in my concealed handgun licensing classes.
How much of a role with gun rights play in the election?
Same as always: zero. And rightfully so, IMHO. The economy plays a bigger role in crime.
Gun control plays a major role in crime. Given a choice between another gun control law and doing something effective politicians will choose gun control.
Still, gun issues will play a minimal role in the election because the Democrats and the national media are pro-control and they know it’s a loser issue. Republicans won’t press the issue because the leading candidates aren’t that pro-gun either.
In related news: The Brady Center just published this year’s issue of their gun control scorecard.
Once again the states with their “A” gun control ratings have more crime than their “D” and “F” states.
Other Matt | February 4, 2008, 10:11am | #
No, he is on the record wanting to make semi-automatic RIFLES illegal.
"Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."
Weapons=rifles?
Silly, stupid, vapid, transparent race card.
Ok, I was wrong, you are pretty much a presumptive fuckwit.
Because I've seen you write on a number of threads about a number of issues, many of which actually do have something to do with racism, and you don't ever have anything to say about actual racism or its effects.
So, lack of comment means whatever you want to infer? For the record, I abhor racism and it's continuing effects. I abhor people who propegate racist beliefs, and I don't give a shit what color they are. I confront it actively wherever I find it. I don't believe "affirmative action" as it's currently being implemented, at least in regards to set aside contracts, education, etc, work as intended. I think people vote for this crap because they haven't seen it in action, which I have.
The racism which is inherent within the "white" community is one of acceptance, meaning, we can pretend that the "inner city" is the place where things need to be "controlled", and delude ourselves into thinking that it's not racist to think so. That's bullshit. The racism which is inherent within the "black" community is one where there's some greater sense of victim entitlement based on history. History has not been kind in a lot of ways, but continuing victimhood does nobody any good, where we convince ourselves that because we're black, we need the government to handle things for us. I believe people show themselves to be honorable, or not. People are worthy of respect, and respect others, or not. I don't give a rats ass what color they are, it's how they carry themselves and treat others which is important.
That good enough for you joe?
What a presumptive prick you are. I thought you were someone who held some different beliefs but were willing to discuss. I guess I was wrong.
I live in Chicago, which has one of the country's highest homicide rates (and incidentally some of its strictest gun laws.)
Hey, amazing how that seems to hold true, isn't it?
Other Matt | February 4, 2008, 10:40am | #
And then Joe can make insightful comments like "Zzzzzzz," because apparently politicians are supposed to be judged by their stated intentions, not their real-world results.
Or, perhaps, joe (you capped the J, he's little insignificant "joe" dontcha know) just doesn't have enough brainpower to come up with comment of substance, or has no foundation, so he basically resorts to third grade level taunts.
Gun control isn't the Ultimate Solution, but it seems foolish to deny the fact that the people who have to worry about getting shot are mostly urban blacks and the people most likely to rant and rave against ANY local gun control measures are, well, not urban blacks.
MP-I would disagree with some of this. I agree that people who have to worry are typically urban blacks, with the caveat that a fair number of women are in that group also due to domestic violence. I disagree about the gun control comments. What you see are the Brady crowd, and the "leaders" of the black community who are staking out a feel good anti violence stand.
The problem is that it doesn't work, and that it affects everyone instead of the intended target.
I would point to the previous comment about Chicago's gun control laws, or DC's. They simply don't work. Of course, when they don't, the gun control people always have a reason, and can't seem to understand it's not about the tool (a firearm), it's about a culture which believes that violence is a solution.
There is a good book called "On Killing", which is a rather large read but very good. It speaks to desensitizing people to violence as happens through a number of mechanisms. The problem in Baltimore, for example, is this "stop snitching" culture, which has grown from people within the gangs to an overall anti police attitude. Part of this culture is to use violence to solve your own problems. While I agree that the police have had a lot to do with it by their SWAT team approach to the world, the real issue is how we eradicate this violence prone culture.
The problem is people have been sold a bill of goods that "guns" are the symbol of this, and need to be banned. Therefore, people like Jennifer, who is physically much smaller and much less trained in the ways of violent confrontation than I am, loses a major equilizer. It's like Stockholm syndrome, where inner city african american leaders have abandoned self emppowerment and espoused the views of their oppressors. It's really astounding if you look at it, they're advocating disarming their own populace, which are most likely to be harmed. However, unlike past movements, there is no corresponding embracing of nonviolent alternatives, there is just disarming the victims.
It really is amazing when you think of it. Counter to this, look on Wikipedia under Malcom X, a man who was photographed ready to protect himself and his family with a firearm simply to make a statement that he was not going to be disempowered.
Then we have fuckwit idiots like joe whose reaction is that pointing this out is somehow "silly" with all the young men and women getting killed. It's sad how far we've come.
Well, no, obviously not. I don't dispute your right to defend yourself; I just wonder how often man-jumps-out-of-an-alley rapes occur in the neighborhoods where you live and work. Most rapists are actually someone the victim knows slightly.
True, they are known, and there is at least a "Creepy" feeling prior, typically something more.
This is a good exampe of the equalizer effect of a firearm in such a situation, you can listen to the call or read the story, either one.
