I live in the South, where the Summer heat is the stuff of which legends are made. To put it bluntly, the heat, y’all, is a bitch. A five-star, gold-plated, ask-no-quarter-and-give-none BE-yatch. You can take your frostbite up in Yankee-Land and shove it where the Sun don’t shine. Frostbite is Romper-Room class stuff, compared to heatstroke. How do I loathe it? Let me count the ways: 

  • First you sweat. A lot.
  • Then you stop sweating. This is your first warning sign. (If you’re lucky, you’ll get more)
  • Sometimes you faint. Sometimes you don’t.
  • Sometimes you get slurred speech, loss of muscle control, equilibrium, that sort of thing.
  • Sometimes you get disoriented and hallucinate.
  • Then your BP drops dangerously low, and your organs start shutting down like the banks will do, once all the Treasury’s Monopoly money gets a hi-colonic and starts flowing through the financial pipeline.
  • And then you die.

I’ve seen all but the last two steps, up close and personal. We hired a crew of off-duty firemen (who should have known better) to move us out of one home and into another, one hot August day in Old East Dallas. This was a 20-something guy, with pecs the size of a drivers seat in an 18-wheeler, and biceps the size of mountain ranges. The guy was ripped, in tip-top physical condition. And from the looks he was getting from my now-ex-wife, it was a unanimous observation. And yet, he was a heatstroke victim that day, and damned lucky his buddies saved his life. Now consider what kind of odds you’d have of surviving that heat if you’re, say elderly. Or malnourished. Or all of the above. Yep. The Southern Summer heat is a cruel mistress, and an unforgiving judge, jury, and sometimes executioner, that strikes anyone without the scratch to run an AC unit, a fan, or some kind of device that can keep the environment cool.

The authorities will tell you to run fans if you don’t have A/C. And to open windows to get air to circulate if you don’t have fans. Do something – anything – to keep the air moving, so you don’t parboil in the afternoon heat. Yep, the odds are stacked against you if you’re poor and can’t afford air conditioning or a fan. But they are exponentially worse, if you live in a part of town where it’s just too dangerous to open a window. Then you might as well stick a fork in yourself, cause you’re done. Usually to a turn.

Now of course, nobody dies of heatstroke on purpose. But if you are sans cool air and afraid for your life and property to open a couple of windows or a door, (remember, the heat makes people do crazy things, and things get pretty crazy in the ‘hood, heat or not), you may have just signed your own death warrant. Damned if you do/damned if you don’t is no way to live. But for thousands of low-income citizens, that’s the choice they get to make, because gun laws won’t allow them to arm themselves to protect their own lives and property. 

If you were some gang-banger, looking to raise Hell and perhaps score a couple of bucks for his drug habit, you’d probably look at gun laws like a coyote would look at legislation outlawing sheepdogs, and an area like the Projects like a field full of sheep. Or sheeple, just waiting to be fleeced. Or to get, um, flocked-over by said coyote. Conversely, if a city allows any upstanding citizen to own a handgun, you’d probably think twice before staging a little home invasion, for fear that the residents might decide to air-condition your body, with a few well placed ventilations.

And that, campers, is why gun laws are inherently racist and unfairly disadvantage the poor and downtrodden. If you’re rich, famous, well-connected, or more than one of the above, you can always find a way around gun laws. Leona Helmsley had it right, when she said “taxes are for the little people,” if you just substitute the word “gun laws” for “taxes.” You’ll note that New Yorks’ Mayor McCheezy has a coterie of Cro-Magnons around, all with telltale bulges under their off-the-rack blazers. Name a Hollywood type that comes out against guns, and I’ll show you a hypocrite that either carries, or has a bodyguard do it for them. But while those with the words “discretionary income” can apply for a dance card, those sans income are not as lucky. This is not a new phenomenon. Gun laws were originally conceived as a part of so-called Jim Crow laws, meant by the white ruling class to keep those uppity freed slaves in their place. Sadly, the current laws on the books haven’t changed that too terribly much. They still hurt poor minorities more than any other demographic group.

Now you’d think that, given the poor and disadvantaged  are the ones getting screwed by gun laws, that the self-proclaimed leaders of those groups – the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Rep. Charlie Rangel, et cetera, would all be clamoring for changes to the law, in order to let their constituents armor-up. And you’d be wrong. Those that claim to speak for minorities have consistently lead the fight for more gun laws, tougher gun laws, and fewer guns in their communities. I’d like to know why. It’s high time everybody in America be able to exercise their constitutional rights to self-defense. And that’s a hot idea who’s time has come.

Recommended For You

50 Responses to The (Gun) Law of Unintended Consequences.

    • A willful misunderstanding of how the constitutional rights work (hint negative rights not mandatory “free” government goodies). And a deliberate ignoring of the whole thrust of the article about high heat and a lack of AC making restricting ingress points potentially dangerous.

      Bravo.

      Seems like mentioning the arrogance and classism in the “that’s what they need” would be extraneous. Yes, I’m sure you know what everyone needs, that’s why you’re all about restricting the free choices and rights of others.

    • Mikey – is that humor/sarcasm, or are you really that ignorant of our U.S. Constitution that you would presume there’s some constitutional right to air conditioning? I mean, WOW. I thought that Progressives trying to argue for a right to high-speed Internet was a stretch, but this? Wow.

      • “or are you really that ignorant of our U.S. Constitution”

        Brad, was that sarcasm or humor, or maybe just general nastiness?

        Is it so difficult for you to just lighten up once in a while and enjoy my jokes. C’mon set an example for the other guys. Look at how seriously Jack responded to me.

        Of course within my sarcasm and humor there’s usually a message. In this case, it’s that I think the 2A protects your right to own a gun in exactly the same way it protects your right to own an air conditioner or a toaster.

        • Humor? We don’t get that much ’round these parts, from Progressives. Sorry. I just assumed you were serious. (REALLY hard to tell sometimes.) And I agree with you – sort of – in that both Supreme Court decisions that have spelled out those rights have been 5 to 4 decisions. I think it’s absolutely bizarre that what to me is an obvious, Constitutional right should hang by the proverbial thread of the opinion of one Supreme Court jurist.

          And sorry if I came off as prickly, kinda got my hands full right now. Running two businesses, taking care of my sick kid, running the site whilst RF is away, and a bunch of other stuff, I’m sleep-deprived and in need of a vacation myself.

    • I know progressives, Mike. I’m friends with progressives. You, sir, are no progressive. You, sir, are a concern troll. The fact is that we’ve known you were a concern troll since we first started reading your turds in the punchbowl.

      How did you miss, in the first place, that poor people can’t afford *FANS*, let alone air conditioning? Where do you come off with this “constitutional right” to A/C? Feh. Go back to your hovel in Italy.

  1. Here in Bismarck, ND today it’s going to be 99 with a heat index of 110. I don’t like it THAT hot but it does make those cool mornings during pheasant and deer hunting season seem all the sweeter.

    • Here in Tennessee we have had a heat index at 100 or above every day for the past 4 weeks and expected for at least another 1 or 2.

      Business as usual really. If you get acclimated all you have to do is stay hydrated. Sometimes 2 gallons of water a day isn’t enough. Really weird drinking that much water and only taking a couple of pee breaks a day.

      • I drank about 16 Bush Light pounders Saturday on lake Oahe when it was 90 sumthin and the same thing happened to me in the urination dept.

        • You’ve got to be really careful with this heat and alcohol consumption. You’ll get dehydrated in an Atlanta minute.

        • That’s why air conditioning is so important. It allows one to maintain his or her alcohol consumption at a wintertime level. That’s wintertime in Moscow, if you must know.

  2. You can take your frostbite up in Yankee-Land and shove it where the Sun don’t shine.

    It is going to be 94ºF with a Heat Index of 110ºF today in Minnesota.

    This last January it got as cold as -32ºF w/out the wind chill.

    The guy was ripped, in tip-top physical condition. And yet, he was a heatstroke victim that day

    In my experience it is always the big ‘tough guys’ who fall out because they are too tough to worry about hydration.

  3. I am in a charitable mood this morning. The said Mayor and Reverends are first order thinkers. It kind of goes like this: “Lots of crime in the ‘hood from all those gang bangers have guns. We need to take guns away from the bangers and then they will go play basketball instead.” When the guns don’t go away with “commons sense” gun laws they go and take guns away from the people who don’t cause the problem. Gun controllers don’t understand the concept of deterrence because it can’t be directly measured with handy government statistics. Crimes that don’t happen can’t be counted.

    The root cause of gun violence in the neighborhoods where poor people live is the breakdown in civil society. The so-called ghettos are ungoverned areas where the state of nature reins all support through the welfare office. These neighborhoods cannot be made safe until the state comes in with something other than a welfare check and an occasional police patrol. Security is a precondition to establishing civil society. Armed self defense is a necessary condition for security. If people feel secure then they will be less inclined to own guns. Support for gun control is highest in areas that don’t need it.

    • “The so-called ghettos are ungoverned areas”

      Oh, they’re governed, all right. Ghettos do not magically spring up from the earth like dandelions. The ghetto seed has to be carefully nurtured. If a lot of evil people, white and black, weren’t making fortunes off the ghettos, there wouldn’t be any.

      • “Ungoverned area” is Pentagonese for areas controlled by non-governmental entities. Think of Somalia where warlords and Pirate Kings rule little fiefdoms. No inhabited place is truly ungoverned if governmental authority breaks down the vacuum will be filled.

        • “Ungoverned area” is Pentagonese for areas controlled by non-governmental entities.

          I know. That’s why I said that ghettos are not ungoverned areas. They are well-governed areas that perform exactly as the government wants them to perform. When they become truly ungoverned, the government tears them down — like Cabrini Green.

          Why would anyone want a ghetto to persist? Because ghettos are money-making machines for people who trade in drugs and misery, and for their accomplices in government. You don’t think that the government would ever do something that evil? Our government went to war to protect the opium trade. What makes this different?

        • The only thing the downtown power structure wants are votes on election day. All other times they are content to let the gangs control the hood. It isn’t the effite liberal elite that makes blue states blue. It is the poor who the Magoos of world want to keep in the chains of ignorance who keep the Dems in power. Yeah it was gratutious swipe at our senior troll.

  4. As long as we’re talking about gun laws that target the poor, how about the various attempts to ban ‘Saturday night specials’? Or ‘Saturday night n-town specials’, as racist antigunners referred to them. The most successful one was probably the ’68 GCA, which among other things banned the import of handguns the poor could afford. The unintended consequence? It also banned importing high quality concealable pistols, which is why it’s so much harder to get a PPK these days.

    Of course, the NAACP has long supported these efforts. They even filed a lawsuit back in ’03 against 45 manufacturers of affordable protection.

  5. First, when something or someone discriminates based on social or economic status it’s not racism, it’s classism. Because you cannot prove that these laws disproportionately affect minorities vs. the majority of the population then the laws aren’t racist. If the laws disproportionately affect the lower socio economic classes, i.e. those that cannot afford A/C, then gun laws are inherently elitist because they favor the wealthy over the poor.

    Second, your argument rejects the idea that don’t want firearms in their homes as opposed to they can’t afford them. Your rantings are based on the assumption that the voter base’s views are inconsistent with their leaders and that the affected poor and down trodden actually want firearms, but are too poor to afford, or to afraid to vote the other way on anti-gun issues. Your argument sidesteps the obvious answer that they vote against guns because they have a more objection to them based on their person beliefs.

    If you are so concerned about the weatherization of the minorities and poor, why don’t take a look into the WAP(Weatherization Assistance Programs )in your area that are designed to provide heating and cooling services to people in low income minority heavy neighborhoods. These programs change light bulbs, weatherize homes, install A/C systems and insulate homes of the “poor and disadvantaged” with no cost to the home owner. That’s right if you below the poverty line, and in a heavy minority neighborhood you can get FREE A/C on the Tax payers money. So if you want to help some people out and prevent them from being attacked, just sign them up and let the tax payer pay for it.

    • “Because you cannot prove that these laws disproportionately affect minorities vs. the majority of the population then the laws aren’t racist.”

      Actually there is an entirel legal theory called “disparate impact” which holds that a purportedly neutral law is indeed racist if it’s main impact falls on a minority. The clearest example of this are the poll taxes and literacy tests that the post-war South established to prevent freed slaves from voting. Since most of the conditions Brad describes do disproportionately affect minorities a strong case could be made that such regulations are indeed racist, if not by design then surely by result.

      “Second, your argument rejects the idea that (the poor) don’t want firearms in their homes as opposed to they can’t afford them.”

      There is no reason to believe that the poor wish to own firearms at a lower rate than the middle class, and it’s a counter-intuitive notion to say the least. If you have some data to support your idea I’d be glad to look at it.

      “Your rantings are based on the assumption that the voter base’s views are inconsistent with their leaders…”

      First, why must you characterize an opinon you disagree with as “ranting”? Anyway, based on poll after poll the minority community (typicall African-American or Hispanic) disagrees with their elected leaders (typically Democrats) on a wide range of issues including religion, gay marriage, and self-defense. Why they continue to vote for people at odds with so many of their beliefs is a question I’m unable to answer.

      “If you are so concerned about the weatherization of the minorities and poor, why don’t take a look into the WAP(Weatherization Assistance Programs)…”

      Does it have to be either/or? Why can’t we let the WAP do its thing while we advocate on an issue we know more about and have some passion for?

    • First, when something or someone discriminates based on social or economic status it’s not racism, it’s classism. Because you cannot prove that these laws disproportionately affect minorities vs. the majority of the population then the laws aren’t racist.

      It’s quite easy to prove that these laws disproportionately affect minorities, just check the census, minorities are disproportionately poor.

    • Nope. When a disproportionately large number of poor, low-income, or indigent people are minorities, and laws specifically target them, that’s racism. I’ll grant you, it’s classism too. But the racist nature of Jim Crow laws should not and cannot be denied. The original laws banning ownership of guns had nothing to do with air conditioning – they predate it’s invention. But the insidious effects of those laws has been an ongoing problem. In post-Civil War America, freed slaves were all but 100% black. They were looked upon as a single demographic, one that represented a clear and present danger to whites. Jim Crow laws were an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of blacks to prevent them from arming themselves, in case of insurrection or for the purposes of defending against lynch mobs. It was only later (in the 70s) that these gun laws were used by Progressives to try and ban gun ownership in the general population. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

      Your second paragraph reveals your bias as a gun-control advocate. Calling my editorial a “rant” pretty well outs you right there, but when you continue by insisting that I’m projecting my own beliefs on the populace, and that low-income citizens have no desire to arm themselves, it removes all doubt as to your intentions and point of view. Exactly when have people been given the opportunity to vote on gun ownership directly? Was there an election I missed? A referendum? A binding vote? I think not. No, people don’t get the chance to vote on gun issues directly. They get to vote for politicians who offer false hope in the way of entitlements, and those pols vote in restrictive gun laws on their own. Gun ownership is rarely the single issue in an election. In places where gun laws have been revised to remove the unconstitutional restrictions on private gun ownership, people have unanimously voted with their wallets, buying guns for self protection. Look at sales figures, state by state, for areas where gun ‘control’ laws have been struck down. If you deny these statistics, you are either blind to the truth, or living behind a reality distortion field cranked up to ’11.’

      I’m familiar with the WAP programs across the country. Have you looked at the waiting lists for such programs? How many people do you know that can wait through a 100º heat wave, keeping their windows shut, secure in the knowledge that the government is here to help – eventually? Have you considered the fact that these programs cover homeowners, but do little or nothing for people who rent? Has it occurred to you that owners of low-income housing are not interested in providing A/C units because of the expense of upkeep for them (even if they are “free”)? Are you aware that most people living below the poverty line do not own their own homes? And are you aware that in some cases, even if they had A/C or fans, they may be in a situation where they can’t afford the electricity (thanks to the ObamaNation “this will necessarily cause utility prices to skyrocket” policies) and therefore have no way to keep cool?

      You are obviously in deep denial over gun laws and why anyone would want to own a gun (hint: don’t bring a knife to a gun fight). You have a right to your views, mistaken as they may be. But don’t try to re-write history or presume that you speak for an entire class of people, just to reinforce your reality distortion field. I like to marshall the forces of facts, data, statistics and truth to bolster my arguments. I saw little of that in your comments.

      • Right on,You have it right. And “the truth will stand when the world is on fire” We need to somehow extract these mis-informed bunch of neer do wells and get back to the basics of our constitution.

      • I object to the above post becuase it is unresaoble, I should have expanded on my ideas and my ideas as well however, neither his arguments, nor any published data proves that it is harder for minorities to purchase firearms over the majority. His argument is predicated on income and the willingness of the individual to purchase a firearm over other luxury items. Granted the poor in this country are disproportionately made up of members of the minority populace, but I haven’t seen any statistics that can prove that the middle class or the majority in general are favorably prejudiced to greater access to firearms based on race. The main argument presented is that current gun legislation is prejudiced against low income minorities that cannot afford to cool their homes and are afraid to open their windows because of the high crime in the areas in which they live. The solution offered by the writer is that access to firearms would curb crime allowing the residents to open their windows. To allow greater access to firearms the conclusion the writer is suggesting is to repeal the inherently racist legislation allowing the poor greater access to firearms. I would call this argument flawed because it does not create a logical solution to the problem. I called his “editorial” a rant because my opinion of his writing is that it is extravagant, and incites anger in a overblown or pompous fashion about existing laws. This description most accurately fits with the definition of Rant.

        I describe his solution as illogical because it only provides passive ventilation to the home and is dependent upon the wind to circulate through the house. Not all homes or locations have access to constant wind or shade and even with the windows and doors open temperatures can still reach in excess of 90 degrees inside the home. Those most susceptible to become injured from heatstroke are the elderly and the very young, and providing these individuals with firearms is not feasible or rational in all cases. Even if all of the neighbors have firearms it is likely that the elderly would still be victimized in these areas because of the perceived feebleness of the occupants inside. The solution does not update the home to current energy efficient or weatherization building codes and guidelines as described in the IBC or the guidelines set forth by the Department of Energy. It also requires the individuals who do not have access to disposable income and cannot afford to pay for their heating and cooling bills to purchase fire arms that can exceed their monthly electrical bill. Had you suggested a solution in which provied increased accessed to lower cost weatherization or a deregulated energy market to increased access to firearms your conclusion would have been less objectionable. You familiarity of the WAP program is based on faulty assumptions one would make if that person has only taken a cursory glance at the program. I however worked with and for several organizations as a contractor for the programs and loathe them immensely because the program represents true classist legislation in favor of the minority based on faulty information and horrible execution resulting in millions of dollars of misspent taxpayer money. The programs cover both homeowners and renters, and in some cases pays for the utilities as well as providing free window units, insulation, light bulbs and energy efficient refrigerators at a highly inflated cost to the taxpayers i.e. $9 per CFL, without providing substantial cost reduction to the homeowner. These programs extend to multi family housing as well.

        Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I could have in regards to my objections to classifying the current firearms legislation as racists. I was referring to current firearms legislation enacted post reconstruction and more recently with respect to those laws that were either repealed or written prior to the civil rights movement. His argument is predicated on income and the willingness of the individual to purchase a firearm over other luxury items. Granted the poor in this country are disproportionately made up of members of the minority populace, but I haven’t seen any statistics that can prove that the middle class or the majority in general are favorably prejudiced to greater access to firearms based on race in the current legislation. To claim that the current legislation is an extension of post-reconstructionist Jim Crow laws is a fallacy and would be eschewing statistical information to draw conclusions based on personal bias. I also suggested that perhaps those affected by the heat, like elderly minorities, are personally not in favor of owning firearms based on reasons not shown by the data and vote for the democratic leadership based on those ideas.

        I don’t object to your article based on whether or not I am a gun rights advocate, because I am and have been for a long time. I object to your editorial rant based on its faulty conclusions and inflammatory view of minorities, with which you have made abundantly clear that you have no firsthand knowledge of how the poor underprivileged minorities live and have written this piece with nothing but personal bias and bad anecdotal analogies.

        • IRock350 – the next time you wanna go all Tolstoy on us, I’d suggest you submit it as a post, rather than a comment. We’re happy to present OpEds, but for me to reply to you, point by point here, is gonna get a little tedious. Having said that…

          I read stories daily on people dying from heatstroke. The newspaper and evening news are full of them. There have been countless stories in the press regarding people living in fear in low income housing, afraid to venture forth due to the risk of rape, robbery and murder. I read a piece just yesterday, that talked about how people in low-income areas are afraid to open windows for cross-ventilation, due to the security risk it entails. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put two and two together to make four. Would people at risk be better off if they could defend themselves? Undoubtedly. (Except in your world, evidently.)

          There’s nothing here that qualifies as a rant. I simply put forth a connect-the-dots proposition, using the well-reasoned, factual, and historically accurate argument about the origins of gun laws, connected it to the plight of low-income families without the means to defend themselves, and added the factor of brutally hot weather. Rant? Hardly. Your comments, on the other hand, certainly qualify as such.

          Then you get into the value of passive ventilation. Seriously? Are you seriously going to sit in judgement of someone in need of relief, and tell them that opening a window will not help? That runs contrary to the advice provided by every public health agency.

          You follow that little gem of logic up with the argument that a gun would be useless for a senior citizen because they are perceived to be weak by predators. Exactly how would that situation improve if they have no gun? And as far as your proposals for the WAP program, exactly how would that help them defend themselves in case of an burglary or home invasion? Does WAP cover deadbolts, monitored alarm systems and security bars? You seem to be focusing on the wisdom of cross-ventilation, rather than addressing the underlying problem of a secure home.

          Laws seldom spring from the minds of lawmakers as something fresh and new. Pols greatly prefer the “slippery slope” methodology, whereby one flawed law justifies the creation of one even more flawed. To presume you know the will of the people in any given demographic is both arrogant and egotistical in the extreme. My logic is based on published reports, data, and statistical analysis. It’s also based on an understanding of human nature and the 2nd Amendment. To deny someone the right to defend themselves with a handgun is unconstitutional, so sayeth the Supreme Court. Deal with it.

          Lastly, how exactly do you see my “views on minorities” as “inflammatory”? I’ve taught in the Caddo Parish Public School system, where I dealt with low-income kids on a daily basis. I taught music lessons for years, where many of my students came from families that needed (and received from us) special assistance to be able to take lessons at all. And I’ve done quite a bit of charitable work for disadvantaged families. Perhaps you might want to get your facts straight, before you start casting aspersions about MY background. If you want to see someone who writes with personal biases and bad anecdotal analogies, let me direct you to the nearest mirror.

        • I can break this down very simply, they are poor and cannot pay to cool their home, how are they going to buy a gun? They are poor and cannot afford to pay to cool their home, how are they going to buy ammo?
          It’s hot there’s no breeze, how is a gun going to prevent heatstroke?

          Removing “anti-gun” laws would not help these people, becuase even though they may have greater access to legaly purchase a firearm, they would not have the money to do so. If they bought a firearm how would it cool the home better than investing that money back into the house?

          And yes, WAP will replace old doors with fire rated steel doors, replace deabolts, replace broken single pain windows with double pain windows and remove and replace security bars.

        • Irock350: Myopic much? The issue here is NOT can they afford a gun. The issue is if the CAN afford it, it is unconstitutional to prevent them from buying one. And the gun laws that prevent them from doing so are inherently racist.

          And as far as statistical analysis goes, I’m color-blind. I don’t care if someone is white, black, brown, yellow, or plaid for that matter. If they live in a state of fear, they deserve to be able to defend themselves. By your logic, I must think that a heatwave is discriminatory.

      • Just beacuse you are fond of facts, in TX between 1999-2004 more White people died of heat related incidents than every other recored race combined. More fun facts if your 75-99 your at a higher risk of dying from a heat related death, and if you are a male you are at a higher risk of dying. I don’t know if all three catagories corespond the same to each other, but thats the stats as recorded. It would seem that the “white ruling class” are at a dissadvanatge, they also own more guns than any other race and achieve higher socioeconomic status in TX.
        In Alabama between 1983-1999, Black males found OUTSIDE, with 1 or more medical conditions age 68 and over statisticaly died more than anyone else.

        http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/vstat/Hotcolddths/agesexrace.shtm
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730727/

        • I think it’s becoming clear that the only racism exhibited around here is coming from YOU. I made it clear in my post that I am against racism. I’m against any law that would put one demographic group (be it by race, socio-economic status or gender) at a disadvantage. And I’m for everyone (regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex) having the right to armed self-defense. Okay – I’ll admit to one bias. I absolutely detest hypocrisy. And I’m not crazy about pinheads. I don’t believe in a “white ruling class” – that has no place whatsoever in this discussion. And the fact that you bring it up suggests that you are the racist.

        • “Jim Crow laws, meant by the white ruling class to keep those uppity freed slaves in their place”-Brad Kozak
          I was quoting you……..Bravo Sir.

          I absolutely detest hypocrisy.

        • Apparently, you don’t know IRONY when it slaps you in the face. Why is it Progressives have no ability to see past their own narrow view of the world. IRONY. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

        • Apearntly you can’t recognize irony either. You used the phrase “white ruling class” to be ironic, I used it to be sarcastic, you accuse me of being racist for using the term having used it yourself in the original post. I show you where I was quoting you, and you call me a progressive who can’t recognize irony all the while failing to realize the obvious irony of calling someone a racist because they quoted you. That is comedy worthy of the greeks.

        • Whites should die at a higher numbers in theses statistics, because they make up a greater percent of the population, that doesn’t make them disadvantaged, that’s just math. What makes a group disadvantaged is if they show up at a significantly higher rate than their representation in the population.

          258 deaths 150 white is about 58% 41 Black is ~15% 65 Hispanic is ~25% and 2 other which is less than 1%… so based on the demographic make up of Texas (71% white 11.5% Black) whites seem to be under represented in deaths and minorities seem to be over represented.

          Unfortunately these #’s call out Hispanic which the Census does not classify as a race (so it complicates those #’s )

        • Brad Kozak:”Apparently, you don’t know IRONY when it slaps you in the face. Why is it Progressives have no ability to see past their own narrow view of the world. IRONY. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.”

          Would this be dramtic irony where the audice is privy to information outside of the scence in which you and I are discussing? Or would this be Socratic Irony in which you fiegn ignorance to lure me into circular argument, in this case I would play the Euthyphro to your Socrates? Or were you being sarcasitc in your original post and I confused the post as an attack subsequently reposting your words in anttempt to point out the irony creating an ironic situtation out of an already ironic situation? At first glance it seems a pale imitation of Socratic irony where we both attempt to search out the truth through anology and syolgism but ultimately fale, but to be honest the two of us make for poor interloctuers. Or is it the sort of irony where a charcter would make a statement like ” There are two things I hate in this world, biggots and the Danish.” wherin the character makes a contradictory statement unknowingly pointing out his own flaws. Like when said you were against racism, then made a comment about detesting hypocrisy, then calling the statement ironic ultimately leading the audience to belive you are in fact a racist. Is that the irony you were talking about, where you admitted your are a racist?

        • Look, not to sound like a broken record here, but personal attacks will get you banned. You’ve been warned.

          Now if you’re curious, I grew up in a musical family. I’m a 5th generation professional musician, among other things. I spent my youth playing professionally with lots of black and Hispanic musicians. In my world, you value and honor talent and ability. That’s ALL that counts. I’m colorblind to race. I was raised that way. I’ve worked with acts like Barry White & the Love Unlimited Orchestra, Gladys Knight & the Pips, Robert Guillame, and jammed with guys like George Benson and Ray Brown. Here’s a clue: You can’t be a racist and work with guys like that. Aside from the immense respect I have for their talent, when you work side-by-side with people that are “different” than you are, you learn very quickly that we’re all the same, under our respective skins.

          Was it that one statement in my post that set you off? Talk to anybody that knows me, even those that don’t know me well. They’ll tell you I’m one sarcastic, quick-witted, sardonic sonofabitch, but they’ll also tell you that I’m anything BUT a bigot (unless you consider a bias against stupidity and pig-headed ignorance bigotry).

          Which leads us to you. You’re obviously and educated man. But there’s a difference between “knowledge” and “reason.” I doubt anybody else here on TTAG missed the irony of my statement, when I said that “Gun laws were originally conceived as a part of so-called Jim Crow laws, meant by the white ruling class to keep those uppity freed slaves in their place.” Seriously. You don’t get the irony in that statement? You don’t comprehend that I’m being CRITICAL of those laws and the motives behind them? I’ve got a buddy of mine (a CEO/programmer in Dallas) who happens to be black, who’d be laughing his ass off at you right about now, probably saying something about “stupid cracker.”

          Look, if you don’t “get” that I’m against racism and against gun laws that penalize minorities and socio-economically-disadvantaged citizens, certainly by now you must acknowledge that (to quote the line from Cool Hand Luke, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” If you’re all pissy because you think I’m a bigot, it’s time to stand down. I’m not. Never have been. Never will be. On the other hand, if you’re continuing to flame me for some other reason, spell it out, or get over it. Additional flaming is NOT in your best interest. And I’m getting tired of pressing that Big Red Button, if you know what I mean.

        • The comedy is too much to bear. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, or find Ashton Kutcher because I am sure I am being punked. I gave you every scenario of irony I could see being presented in this argument, you can make a case for every single one. I personally thought it was the double irony rainbow, and I am not convinced that it isn’t. Like the comedian once said, “If you don’t get the joke, I don’t get the laughs.” The quoted section about bigots and the danish was a quote from Austin Power’s : Gold Member BTW. I think if you re-read the 3 posts preceding that one you will get the joke.

        • I don’t find racism (or being accused of being a racist) funny. And I’ve got a fairly broad sense of humor. Frankly, between running my own two businesses, playing Mr. Mom to a daughter who’s home ill, and manning the helm while Robert is away on vacation, I’ve got my hands full. At this point, the conversation seems to be devolving to the point of an absurdist French farce. (Oh yeah…THOSE guys. You know, the ones who find Jerry Lewis funny.) Sorry I missed the Goldmember quote. Not the funniest one in the series. But oddly enough, my default ringtone (the red phone from Our Man Flint) keeps getting mis-attributed by people that hear it as if it’s from Austin Powers. See…now you’ve got ME free-associating and delving into existentialism. Don’t have time to re-read the last three posts for now, but I’ll keep that in mind for the next time I go to the dentist. Probably save big bucks on Novocain.

        • Brad,

          I seriously think it is time to break out the ban hammer.

          This guy has trolled pretty much every post that’s been put up for the last couple of days.

          I would check his I.P. , as it seems our other resident trolls leave his threads alone.

  6. One reason people don’t buy AC’s is because of how often they get stolen- from right out the window, and in certain places, if you leave your door open, it’s an invitation for unsavory people to come in. If you only open your windows, then you have those same unsavory people looking in, casing your home. I’ve lived in the city, so I’m familiar with this. But I don’t have any hope for those anti-gun high-crime areas repealing their restrictions for law-abiding citizens, considering that they have made tazers, pepper spray and mace illegal along with guns. Those areas don’t want anyone defending themselves legally.

  7. Brad,

    It’s not really all that hot in Dallas bud. Come to Houston and drink some of our 98F/99RH air for a change. Dallas will seem cool and dry after a week in Houston. Better yet, meet in Austin at the pub overlooking Lake Travis and we can flash a little hardware for the liberal yuppies to gawk at. The first Shiner is on me!

    • Sweet Mother Of All That Is Good And Holy, Jeffrey, I spent a couple of days last August in Houston. A more humid blast furnace I can’t imagine. You guys seriously need to go subterranean. Dig a network of tunnels between the buildings like they did in downtown Dallas. If I lived in Dallas, I’d have to summer in Michigan or something. Wow. But I’ll take you up on that Lake Travis meet. Hippie Hollow was where I got my PADI cert. Not that I could SEE anything in the water. The Creature from the Black Lagoon coulda been there, and I’d never have seen him coming.

      • They already dug the tunnels in Downtown Houston and they have been there for 40+ years, but it’s only used in down town.

  8. Where in the South can one not legally possess firearms in one’s own home?

    I know Bostonians and New Yorkers are self-defense deprived, but where in the South?

    The only states south of the Mason-Dixon that don’t have “shall issue” CCP are Alabama, California, Hawaii and Maryland. Well, Arizona too – no permit required.

    So where in the South are the skulls of politicians so excreta-impacted that such a law is possible?

    • Maryland and Alabama are southern, but you dishonor us by lumping Californians in with the South. Hawaii is kinda like a bonus level to the United States, you have to duck behind the scenery and run behind the level to pick up the magic flute to warp there.

  9. “Poor people” can afford cell phones, big screen TVs, microwave ovens, refrigerators and cars. Fans cost $10 at Walgreen’s. Cold showers are virtually free. An intelligent, capable person can stay alive in the heat of Summer. The elderly and the stupid can have problems. As a general rule, poor people tend to be stupid also.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *