• New York Times Campus Carry Antonia Okafor

Gun control is racist, classist and sexist. Not surprisingly, the comments under a recent New York Times opinion piece written by Antonia Okafor, a University of Texas-Dallas student, prove the point better than any gun rights supporter ever could. The Times published the op-ed, “Why I Bring My Gun to School” and all hell broke loose in their comments section.

Gun-hater heads, reacting to the cognitive dissonance of a black female campus carrier, popped like Orville Redenbacher in a microwave. Reading a young, intelligent African-American female describe how carrying a gun makes her safer proved to be more than the tolerant, high-minded readership of the old Gray Lady could safely process.

An excerpt from Ms. Okafor’s piece:

This was in 2015, around the time the Texas Legislature began debating, and ultimately passing, a so-called campus carry bill. I grew up in a Democratic, immigrant household in a suburb outside of Dallas, where guns and gun policy were never discussed, so I hadn’t paid much attention when similar bills failed in 2011 and 2013.

But that year something changed. I was 25 years old, commuting alone, and as a minority woman, I felt particularly vulnerable.

I started fighting for students’ rights to carry concealed weapons for selfish reasons: I wanted to be able to protect myself. But I quickly found a network of women who felt the same way I did, and we began to advocate for our safety together.

I eventually became the Southwest director of Students for Concealed Carry, and am now the founder of the self-defense nonprofit Empowered, which will open its first chapter this fall, at the University of North Texas.

…Female gun ownership isn’t a matter of political affiliation. I’ve met women across the political spectrum who own guns for self-defense or for shooting recreationally. In particular, black women have become a lot more interested in gun ownership and shooting classes.

The rights and values of gun-owning women aren’t being addressed by either political party. While conservatives aren’t paying enough attention to sexual assault, liberals are actively hurting women’s access to self-defense.

Many liberals — including many female professors my organization approached as potential sponsors for Empowered — don’t support a woman’s “right to choose” when it comes to her own self-defense. They can’t get behind a vision of female empowerment that doesn’t match their own.

Okafor’s op-ed prompted enough of a reaction that The Times ultimately closed comments on the story. Upper West Siders, along with other like-minded, enlightened folk from around leftysphere rained flames of ignorance down upon the author and millions of other People of the Gun.

Here are a few selected gems and bon mots, starting with an oldie but a goodie; “gun owners are racist”.

Dadof2  NJ

One of the most racist and misogynist alt-right organizations call themselves the 3% (or something similar) referring to the statistic that 50% of the guns in America are held by 3% of the population—and those descendants of the lynching KKK consider themselves emblematic of that 3%.

And they are more and more boldly carrying them in public as they shout in public protest for a return to white male “Christian” tribalism, where white “Christian” men are at the top of the heap, with absolute superiority over “their” women, and “lessor” races and religions.

And they have a history, from before the Civil War through to Dylann Roof, of using those guns to terrorize women and minorities, a documented history of Terrorism that has murdered at least 5,000 people, nearly double the deaths in 9/11. The ultimate bullies.

Ignoring facts or claiming that established facts aren’t true is akin to closing one’s eyes and plugging one’s ears to make the terrible man (or in this case, woman) go away.

Atticus  New York, NY
Belief in guns is much like the belief in God: Just because it makes you feel better doesn’t make it true. Here we have yet another gun lover relying on feelings rather than facts. There’s been no credible research demonstrating that carrying a gun makes your safer. In fact, it’s just the opposite. All the writer has accomplished by carrying a gun is climb up the ladder from Low Risk to High Risk.

Ms. Okafor is clearly craven, morally shaky and mentally ill…

mike  nola

so you, the weak, fearful, distrustful, downright scared person feels “empowered” by feel of a Ruger LC9 pistol in your hand…that’s just nifty. Now what about my right not to have you and your craven, shaky and frankly terrified self in control of a killing machine?

…I don’t care that you are female or a person of color, I care that you are mentally and emotionally unstable and your stated information demonstrates that you are both. An inanimate object capable of killing “makes you feel powerful” and your ego may just kill someone just because you wanted too.

This educator claims to be terrified by her students.

Dee Katz  Syracuse NY

As a college professor, the thought of my students carrying guns is terrifying.

Okafor is sure to be shot by a cop when he sees her printing!  Oh no!

Jasonmiami  Miami

Well, as a fellow African American, you should seriously ask yourself the question of whether or not you are are more likely to be abducted and brutalized by some random criminal or shot by a police officer when he sees you “printing.”  …I’ve been pulled over and searched by jittery police far more times than I’ve been held up by jittery criminals.. A sad testament, but true.

We must repeal the Second Amendment!

NorthernVirginia  Falls Church, VA

Repeal the Second Amendment and allow our legislators to pass common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.

As for individual concern for personal safety, it used to be that one had to demonstrate a need for a concealed firearm and demonstrate proficiency in its use. Like to see that return.

For now, every person in range of the village idiot’s firearm of choice must take the risk that he will accidentally discharge it, or will misunderstand a situation or mistake his target and will purposely discharge it. And the carnage goes on…

While racism and sexism are abhorred by The Times’ readers, misandry is alive and thriving.

masayaNYC  Brooklyn
…On a side note, if _only_ women, the disabled, minorities, were permitted to carry a concealed gun in this country – and men were not – I might be much more comfortable with the idea of concealed carry.

Jes Gunn fears Jim Crow era racism in the Texas courts should Ms. Okafor use her firearm.

Jes Gunn  Portland Oregon

I wonder if the author has given much thought to how a Texas court would handle a self-defense case when a woman of color shoots a white assailant.
That would also be an interesting read.

Oh, and she’s clearly not skilled or intelligent enough to use a gun for personal defense.

N Guest  Berkeley, CA

I’m afraid you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. You’re more likely to injure or kill someone with a poorly-aimed shot than you are to save yourself.

The People of The Gun… only one bad day from revealing themselves as the murderers they truly are.

Justice Holmes  Charleston

I can’t tell you how infuriating this article is. Why should I or any commenter raise the issue of “responsible” gun ownership that only seems to last as long as someone’s self control. How often have we seen a situation wherein a responsible gun owner turns into a murderer! Enough.

How dare she entertain badthink as a liberal woman of color? She’s clearly left the gun control plantation without permission!

danrosenbaum1  New York

You opinion on gun rights and safety is alarming, especially from a self proclaimed liberal woman of color. The simple fact is quantitative data doesn’t support your anecdotal feelings of safety when you carry a concealed gun. Do you walk with a loaded gun out and ready to shoot in anticipation of an assault or do you think you will be able to unholster a gun and shoot a sexual predator without being overpowered as a petite female? The reality of the situation is in this country it is a shame that you have to fear a 10pm walk to your car across a college campus, but the likelihood of you being shot by your own gun is probably substantially higher then any defense the gun will provide.

Texas redneck students are sure to open fire on those with political differences.

Max Deitenbeck East Texas

I too am a student at a UT school. You have every right to protect yourself, and yes, you are right about women being in danger.

What about my right to be able to argue in the classroom without fear of angering one of the extremely conservative (and oh boy are there a lot of those at my particular campus) students who might be carrying a loaded gun?

Fortunately, somehow, a few supportive comments managed to sneak through the miasma, including this one:

KarlosTJ  Bostonia

Congratulations and many thanks for an eloquent description of the challenges you faces as a minority woman afraid of the fact that there are evildoers in our society who mean you harm. You are indeed “selfish” to want to protect yourself – YOU have the right to YOUR life, YOUR liberty, and YOUR pursuit of YOUR happiness, and that is intentionally self-ish. Anyone who chastises you for being this kind of selfish is a moronic child with no ability to think.

Self-defense is a primary right – and you should never give it up. And only moronic children believe you are wrong to hold onto it.

Nailed it.

101 Responses to Black Woman Carries Gun on Campus, NY Times Readers’ Heads Explode

    • I agree that she is a cutie. Nice smile.

      Good for her. I’m glad she can protect herself. That is a basic human right.

      Unfortunately she does sound a little feminist sjw leaning.

      • Why unfortunately? Do you find feminism or social justice threatening?

        If more feminists and social justice warriors were law abiding people of the gun, the world would be a better place, particularly for us.

  1. One note on the TTAG response article: the NYT ALWAYS closes it comments. That’s ordinary and nothing that they did degrades this piece.
    I was delighted to read her article yesterday morning,though.

  2. Many of my Black friends pack heat. A good example is Michael Gargill, who owns a gun store in South Austin, Texas, where gun safety courses are also taught.

    However most such Black friends seem to be Libertarians. So they are already lost to liberal Democrats.

    • Any libertarian who supports the American Authoritarian Socialist Party, er, “Democrats”, I mean, is either an idiot or not a libertarian. While not perfect, the right has done FAR more to protect individual rights than the left, including 1A and 2A issues, both of which the left is openly hostile to.

        • I agree with your thought, but partially incorrect. Only 2 of the 5 boroughs of NYC are surrounded by water, Manhattan Island and Staten Island. Brooklyn and Queens are part Long Island and are bordered on the East by Nassau County. Bronx is on the mainland.

    • I would like to point out that the stupid, misinformed comments in the NYT come from all over the country. It is truly depressing to see how wide-spread this kind of illogical thinking (or lack of thinking) is.

    • Amen too that. It’s so sad that they attach a woman that want nothing more than to protect herself. What is wrong with a person just trying to protect themselves. We need to get back to our grounding base of what this country was found upon. Too many people have just taken our FREEDOM for GRANTED. Our rights have been tossed aside and thought of as just a natural or just given right. This isn’t true or even a given. This is something that must, and has been fought for. Not Socialism, not a county given to a King or Queen, but a Free country based upon Rules and free Capitalism. Something that too many people forget that is the core of our FREEDOM and our Society. You can be what you want, but we need to protect our rights. Thus PEOPLE have the right to protect themselves according to the 2nd amendment. Isn’t this America, or have we become some THIRD WORLD COUNTRY???? NO, The U.S.A is the greatest, and we all should be able to protect ourselves both in our homes and when out and about…..

  3. Absolutely true that an armed citizenry means that mistakes will be made, people will be undeservedly shot, kids will find a parent’s gun and discharge it, guns will be stolen and used in subsequent crimes, and people will die. Absolutely. And the founders were no stranger to those facts.

    And yet nonetheless, they put their weight behind the right of a citizen to own a weapon of war. Despite all that risk. Why? Because of a sincere belief that freedom, once won, is easier to maintain, than once lost, to regain. Because they knew that all of life engages you with compromise and hard decisions, and that the wise will choose those options providing the greatest overall good. They revered freedom and a government that reported to the people over a people that reported to the government. And so they saw the above risks, the above damage, the above inevitable problems as subordinate in consequence to the loss of freedom – however remote the chance – at the hands of an armed government and an unarmed populace.

    They wanted to create a citizenry – a country composed of ruling citizens – to replace the country of subjects inherited from England and under the thumb of King George III. And so they instituted an Amendment to their magnum opus, the Constitution, that ensured that those citizens would never again be subjugated, because that was a far worse outcome than that of the above costs to keep subjugation at bay. They created Liberty, and gave us the means by which to keep it, with full understanding that the tree of liberty must, sadly, and at times, be watered by the blood of patriots as the cost of its survival.

    • LOL.

      You really need to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The Constitution was Alexander Hamilton’s plan to create a strong central government and introduce European-style banking and financial systems in the US. Patrick Henry, Jefferson, Madison and the Anti-Federalists all got played.

      Why do you think the Bill of Rights is a separate document? Because the original document, crafted behind closed doors, had none of those concessions and when the States were finally allowed to read it prior to ratification they were horrified.

      Poor Rhode Island didn’t even send a delegate…they were perfectly happy with the Articles of Confederation. They were practically and for all intents and purposes forced into ratification later as the last holdout.

      And the outcome of ratification? Central bank control, ever expanding government debt, more taxes, more bureaucracy and centralized power.

      I’m sorry but…we’ve all been taught a myth and lie in our government indoctrination camps (public school).

      “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner 1867

      https://www.garynorth.com/public/7833.cfm

      • Nice try, but no cigar; the agreement was that the Constitution would only be ratified if the Bill of Rights was included; the colonies were not as naive as you make them seem, nor were the Founding Fathers. What was written had to be amended or the colonies would have risen up against it. And exactly what I wrote, which was the driving mindset behind the patriots that fought to create the new nation, is true.

        I hail from Rhode Island, and the history of the state is of decidedly renegade mindset – from Roger Williams, who believed that the Puritans weren’t puritanical enough, but nonetheless wanted out from under the thumb of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (it is, after all, nicknamed “Rogue’s Island”), to the extent that the state had to be threatened to ratify the Constitution, and was the last of the colonies to do so. The burning of the Gaspee was arguably the first serious conflict of the colonies with George III’s minions, and that happened in Narragansett Bay (that’s in Rhode Island, for those who are geographically challenged).

        And what Hamilton did or did not do, or try to do, is immaterial to the issue here at hand, which is that the belief at the time was that standing armies were agents for oppression of the people. The notion that an armed citizenry was the best defense against that depression was dear to them after such a bloody, but successful, rebellion. They knew that power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and made sure that the power stayed with the citizen by instantiating that power in the principal founding document.

        I have read the Federalist Papers, and they are like many flak pieces, a word salad composed to drive what was essentially a piece of legislation through. As for whether or not a piece of paper is sufficient to force men to follow it, the notion itself is facetious. What is written is only valuable to those who abide by law; no law has ever been written, nor can any law be written, that will force a person determined to disobey it to follow it. Laws are covenants with the lawful – otherwise they are just words.

        So any failure of the Constitution to force those who are willfully determined to ignore it, as we have seen to our detriment, is not a slam on the Constitution, but rather on men and the failure of society. If men were angels, we would need no laws. But paper is paper; there must accompany laws the will to see them followed. That is the failing of today’s America, sleepwalking through life as the thieves loot the treasury without consequence – not of the Constitution. How do you think we ended up 20 trillion dollars in debt?

  4. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The greatest threat to Dem disarmament is when traditional Dem voters discover the joys of shooting and interact with law abiding POTG.

    Think this woman is going to vote for the party saying all these nasty things about her?

  5. Here’s another tired theme…

    “Chuck Setauket,NY
    The illusion of protection this young woman feels carrying a gun costs 30,000 Americans their lives each year.”

    That 2/3rds of those are suicides and our national suicide rate is quite average is likely lost on Chuck from Setauket.

    • That 80% (give or take) of non-suicidal deaths are violent criminals murdering other violent criminals engaged in criminal activity also escapes Chuck from Setauket.

  6. Nothing new here…unfortunately. You can’t reason with those that deliberately choose to be unreasonable. The struggle is real. And never ending. Stand and defend what is yours.

  7. I’m unfamiliar with the “Right to Feel Safe” that pops up in several of those hostile comments. Must be unenumerated.

    • Yep Any woman get’s an automatic 2 points on the hotness scale for knowing how to use and to carry a firearm. She’s at least a 10, then add two more for carrying a firearm, especially on campus, so she is actually a 12..

    • Did I hear someone say she’s black? I didn’t notice, maybe I was blinded by that smile. I think I’m in love! You go, girl!

    • Here I am. Arms controls of civilian populations, especially in the American (and before that, the English) experience, has a deep history of bigotry. English law only granted Protestants the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws began appearing after the Civil War that were specifically designed to keep Blacks from owning and/or carrying arms. Such legislation was passed all the way through the 70’s.

      From the 80’s forward, I can’t recall any gun control legislation that was passed with a clearly racial agenda. However, all gun control has a disparate impact on the poor. According to the internets, Blacks, Hispanics, and Other have a higher rate of poverty than Whites. Therefore, gun control has a disparate impact on all the not Whites.

      Is gun control necessarily a form of bigotry? Probably not. There are plenty of ethnically homogeneous countries that have more gun control than America. Is gun control a form of bigotry as practiced in America? One can decide for himself.

      • Many similar restrictions would be considered racist if applied to registering to vote rather than to buying or carrying a gun.

        • I think I made it clear that there is a strong argument based on the history and impact of gun control that it is racist. I don’t really care if it is racist or not. It’s wrong. Why should I care if it is more wrong?

          I do get that it is a good argument to use against SJW types (and I do use it for such), but it’s pretty much the choir around here.

          P.S., in certain contexts, the disparate impact would make gun control laws illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with the 2A.

      • If memory serves, the infamous Sullivan Act in NYC was explicitly enacted to prevent black folks from owning firearms.

        Like I tell anti-gun morons, survival is not mandatory!

    • I think we should start a new narrative that banning black guns is racist (against black guns)! Half a dozen states have bans on black guns (the AR-15 and its lookalikes), based purely on their looks. That’s racist (against black guns), LOL!

      On a more serious note, “assault weapons” bans that target specific guns tend to ban guns favored by blacks.
      For example, my home state, the People’s Republic of New Jersey, is the only state in the U.S. to ban the M-1 Carbine (although the vastly more powerful M-1 Garand and M1A are perfectly legal in NJ).
      Why does New Jersey specifically ban the M-1 Carbine, even though it has none of the “evil” (scary-looking) “assault weapons” features (no pistol grip, no adjustable stock, no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor, no threaded barrel)?
      I’ve heard it was banned because the M-1 Carbine was favored for self-defense by black people.
      That alone was apparently enough to get a specific gun banned, despite it having no “evil” (scary-looking) features.

      And then there’s the fact that the New Jersey “assault weapons” ban specifically bans semi-auto pistols weighing over 50 ounces with a magazine outside the pistol grip, simply because Hollywood movies made them look scary. This had the unintended effect of banning the Ruger 10/22 Charger, a rimfire target pistol chambered in .22 LR, as well as the Broomhandle Mauser C96, an 1896 antique! Or maybe it was INTENTIONAL to ban the 1896 Broomhandle Mauser, because after all, a Hollywood movie made it “look scary” in the hands of a James Bond villain, and “scary-looking in Hollywood movies” is apparently the main criteria New Jersey uses for its “assault-weapons” ban!

      And don’t get me started on New Jersey considering air rifles (BB guns) and blackpowder antiques (including a 17th century Queen Anne’s Flntlock) as deadly “firearms” and locking people up for possessing them (especially if the air rifle or BB gun has a “silencer” on it)!

  8. My wife, former women colleagues, women students, friends—virtually every woman I’ve talked to about this—can relate those moments, often in a dark parking lot or someplace similar, were they felt extreme vulnerability. At my former school, a steady pattern of late-night parking lot incidents just underscored the problem and the danger. I don’t think any man can ever quite understand just how vulnerable women feel in such situations. We’re just not made that way. I’m pretty certain Ms. Okafor can easily describe the dangerous situations that influenced her decision to carry a weapon. Good on her.

    • Just to piggyback on this comment: I’m above average height and build. I can still run a mile around the 6 min mark and grapple with the younguns. In my 40s and starting to slow down due to military career (it’s not the years–it’s the mileage). BUT–I make damn sure I pack to protect my wife and son because they are my priority above all else. I was WELL aware of OUR vulnerability after a surgery had my wife in a wheelchair for weeks.

  9. I like the fact that gun owners will often self-police and snap on our own who would post racist or sexist comments about other gun owners. The vast majority of us will speak up and remind others that everyone has the right to firearms.

    But man, anti-gunners go batshit, straight up super-ignorant on the topic and it only seems to perpetuate a feeding frenzy of racism and sexism. Sadly, no anti-gunner ever steps in and goes, “whoa, just maybe all gun owners AREN’T white, pedophile rapists. Maybe we should take a breath…”

  10. Why does anyone care about what the NYT publishes or the snowflakes that read it. Unfortunately for some that state is a 2A wasteland. Those who choose to remain there live in a hopeless world. Even if it could happen it will take more than 100 years to eliminate the Leftist control of that area. Why 100years you ask. Because that is about how long it has taken to get it to where it is today.

    • “Why does anyone care about what the NYT publishes or the snowflakes that read it.”

      Know the enemy. Political reconnaissance.

      Make no mistake. We are in a war for our rights.

      Get it? Got it? Good!

      (Mic drop…) 🙂

  11. What about my right to be able to argue in the classroom without fear…?

    Your fear is just that: YOURS. It’s a personal problem you need to deal with, not a right. No one has the right to force someone else to assuage his own personal fears. (Maybe we can provide tax-funded binkies to these progbot crybabies.)

    • “What about my right to be able to argue in the classroom without fear of angering one of the extremely conservative (and oh boy are there a lot of those at my particular campus) students who might be carrying a loaded gun?” Try being polite.

    • I think it’s more a fear that they are SJW and like to get into people’s faces to yell at them when they get triggered. I could almost see Max yelling at the lady in the article for caving in to the white man’s privilege that has been weighing her people down for the last 200+ years and she should be shot with her own gun because she is somehow personally responsible for every death caused by a gun, a sellout to the NRA and the gun lobby and she is racist for not being like other liberal black people.

    • You would think that anyone who was well educated enough to be a professor/teacher at the university level would know that classroom discussions are not about ARGUING your points and getting angry and shouting and potentially shooting at each other. The professor is supposed to be an expert and present certain facts and data for the student to absorb, or question. The result should be a discussion and interaction, at most a debate over differences of opinion. If it comes to the point of an argument about the subject matter then SOMEONE is in the wrong classroom. Sometimes it’s the professor.

      If the professor cannot resolve questions about the subject they are supposed to be expert in without resorting to arguments with students then they are woefully unprepared for their occupation.

      • I had some of those radical professors who got hot under the collar and would try to retaliate against students who disagreed with their slant. This was in college and law school in the ’70’s.

        I carried every day–a little S&W Model 66–and didn’t shoot a single soul. And I was so libertarian that an economics professor nicknamed me “Starve the Children”.

  12. “it used to be that one had to demonstrate a need for a concealed firearm”

    Oh, that’s simple: according to the Declaration of Independence and as expressed in the Constitution, my life is just as valuable as that of the President and all the rest protected by the Secret Service — if their lives are worth protecting, so is mine.

    But since I don’t have taxpayers paying Secret Service agents to guard me, I have to do it myself.

    • NorthernVirginia Falls Church, VA pines for the days when one had to prove that he was not Black before he could receive a license to carry.

  13. Excuse me, I have to schedule and appointment with my doctor to diagnose me with Jungle Fever now.

      • We’ll let this one slide… “Jungle Fever” was a movie made by Spike Lee a couple of decades ago. Frankly, I’d never heard the term before that movie came out.
        Truth is pushing the line with a naughty grin on his face but we’ll be gracious and say it was a compliment.

        • Probably intended to be complimentary, but implies that her worth as a person is at least as much dependent on her looks as her actions promoting gun rights.

    • I had to see this one for myself. I am actually sincerely thanking you for pointing out this article. I doubt I would have seen it otherwise. Cracking the fuck up over here. Some other noteworthy comments:

      “The 2nd amendment isn’t about guns. It’s about keeping Blacks in their place, apart and pacified.”

      “To a conceal and carry Texan, you’re the other side of ‘Make My Day.'”

      “Our right to not live in an armed madhouse of paranoid people trumps any right you may have to carry or brandish a weapon in public.”

      “I’m sorry you feel the need to carry a gun. If you do, you make it more likely to scare off an attcker, but you make yourself much less safe.”

      “But, you suffer from common human trait, cognitive dissonance. That is, that nothing bad will happen to you because of your gun ownership.”

      I’m now realizing that damn near every single comment is hilarious, so I’m not copying any more. One thing I’m noticing in all of their comments is the near-incessant talk of probability. Fascinating. I already spent a small chunk of this last Saturday night ranting about how utterly meaningless their probability references are, so I’m not going to do it again, but HOLY SHIT. It’s as if they never stop and think for even a second if what they’re saying makes any sense. Again, fascinating.

      Lastly, the concept of “rights” is completely lost to the anti-gun crowd. I mean, they seem to have no grasp on what rights are, whatsoever. To them, if something makes them “feel” a certain way, they seem to think that thing, whatever it may be, does not have the right to exist. There are no words.

      • ActionPhysicalMan that was not supposed to be a reply to you- not sure why my comment got posted there.

      • Pathological solipsism, that’s what it is.

        While philosophical solipsism contends that only the self can be known (if even that) and all else is unknowable, today’s “liberals” — the progressive leftists and social justice crowd — have somehow convinced themselves that their own inscrutable inner realities are the sole arbiters of what other beings may, no, MUST do.

        Narcissism combined with solipsism? I don’t know. Whatever you call it, it’s ugly and borderline insane.

        • I’m glad you put “liberals” in quotation marks. That brings up another thing that always gets me with people who self-identify as “liberal.” Liberalism was the philosophy that this country was founded upon. It was the philosophy of freedom. It was a beautiful philosophy. Liberalism was distrustful of government, and fully acknowledged the detrimental effect on personal freedom that government almost always has. After the New Deal ushered progressivism into the mainstream, people just kept calling themselves “liberals” without realizing that progressivism is totally incompatible with liberal principles. Today, “liberal” is basically just a synonym for “person who votes Democrat.” It has lost all of its original meaning, and now just denotes a ridiculous patchwork of incongruent ideas that were piecemealed together by politicians. I giggle to myself every time I hear someone say, “I’m a liberal,” and at the same time, it annoys me because I have to refer to the original philosophy as “Classical Liberalism,” despite the fact that modern liberalism is more just a balloon filled with dog farts than a philosophy. Anyway, fear not, all ye who read this, we libertarians are now carrying the torch and we will not let freedom die.

        • “After the New Deal ushered progressivism into the mainstream, people just kept calling themselves “liberals” without realizing that progressivism is totally incompatible with liberal principles.” – That ain’t no accident.

          FDR could only be described as a progressive or socialist, but most everybody knew those were un-American things. So FDR said he was a liberal, and the liberals were conservatives. At that point, conservative basically meant people who support the monarchy.

          Fast forward 50 or 60 years, and “liberals” are calling themselves progressives because people are now familiar with progressive philosophy under the name of liberalism, and many people know it’s un-American.

  14. So when are we going to see article on TTAG written by Antonia Okafor? If the anti-gun crazies hate her, then I think she is a perfect fit. She’s georgeous, educated, and likes shooting firearms…….I don’t think it gets any better than that.

  15. The scariest thing in america is an articulate black woman/ man with a gun. Now its the woman’s turn!
    Stacy Washington I know your out there!!!
    I’m glad the internet is passing this around including the comments. And I especially like the her holding an MP5. The visual image to the uninformed gun hater will be devastating. It makes me smile!!!

  16. Why do the antis always say we are one bad day away from shooting someone?
    In the time I’ve carried I’ve had way more than “one” bad day and still managed not to shoot anyone! As far as a killing machine goes they should be more worried about my truck than my gun. 🙂

    • 100% projection. Seriously. Had a guy who was an acquaintance who parroted that all the time. We later became friends and I learned in his background he had fired a gun in anger at someone over a dispute (in no way a justified shoot) no one was harmed and nothing came of it. He came from a poor background in a high crime area (meth country trailer park). He refused to have one cause he couldn’t trust himself and therefore no one else. I can’t say for sure but in nearly all cases that people make this argument I suspect its projection

  17. Anyone who makes the NYT readership’s (never mind op-ed writers’) heads explode is probably doing something that I approve of.

  18. Oh man all those azzwholes are just upset by her “uppity” ways. How dare you venture off the plantation! Not surprised… but if she declares she’s a Republican I WILL be.

  19. I saw her interview on The Rubin Report and instantly became a fan. Saw her again recently in a PragerU video. Glad to see she is getting more exposure.

  20. These people are overly fearful of the most lawabiding group of people in our society CCW holders.

    • That is probably the real reason THESE objectors are objecting.
      They are out and about with Criminal intent & not sure whom to target. Lovely young lady like this is something they would try and target.
      Carry on, be ever aware, & stay safe.

  21. Strange how the desire to feel safe is a terrible reason to carry a gun, but a perfect justification to try to stop someone else from legally carrying one.

  22. I would hope that readers would be as supportive of her efforts to promote gun rights if she were ugly. We can all see the photo; does commenting on her appearance do anything other than perpetuate stereotypes about OFWGs?

  23. I’m just happy a woman finally understands that abortion takes away the rights of a future, vocal female/person. It’s like a light bulb just turned on…”oh, I’m actually killing SOMEONE!”
    “The truth can set you free”. Where have I heard that before?

  24. I’m just happy a woman finally understands that abortion takes away the rights of a future, vocal female/person. It’s like a light bulb just turned on…”oh, I’m actually killing SOMEONE!”
    “The truth can set you free”. Where have I heard that before?

  25. Sorry “mike nola” You do not Have that Right.
    But if you feel threatened by her wanting to protect herself, Maybe you should date a Stronger Woman to protect you.

  26. a Law abiding citizen would not have any fears of this woman because they are not going to offend her safety.

    Don’t Start None, Wont be None!

  27. The Democrat Party created the KKK. The ARMY was integrated until Democrat Woodrow Wilson segregated the services. The Republicans passed civil rights laws in the 50. IKE sent the National Guard to integrate the schools.
    LBJ was a racist Democrat and anti-gun. But he was forced to sign civil rights laws.
    But his Great Society forced black families apart, took their private homes where many had small businesses.
    Democrats want their slaves back.

  28. There’s an awful lot of projection in those comments.

    “She’s so fearful she must be insane!”

    “OMG I’m scared that my students are going to murder me if they have guns!”

  29. Read a few of the comments from the original article on the NY Times website. It’s hard to wrap your head around what most of these people think and say. Many sound completely insane and devoid of facts. Tragic. I rated the article on the NY Times’ website very highly – you can even add comments that go to the editors. I think everyone here should do the same.

  30. Many I’m wrong but I believe that the aforementioned 3% has to do with the percentage of the colonies which rose up against the crown. I’m pretty certain it has absolutely nothing to do with the non relevant KKK, which amount to a bunch of doofuses who like to drink cheap beer and say off color things. These people do not know anything about what they speak of saying things like “carrying a loaded gun” as though there is anyone who carries an unloaded gun. But they say things like quantitative data and anecdotal which means they are so educated and thus smart because there isn’t a difference between the two, right? How about how it’s more scary that she has a ruger lc9 in her shaky hand, not the ruger lc9 known throughout the world, that must have Brennan the first one that popped up when they googled “handgun” ooh, ruger lc9, this person knows what they’re talking about, I might have gone with,oh I don’t know, glock maybe, something everyone has heard of. These people are such a joke and proof of that is they just excommunicated one of they’re own. they can and will piss off, soon enough since they are all eating they’re own faces off.

    • There are claims that 3% of gun owners own most of the guns. This is a statistic used by the gun grabbers to show that there aren’t as many gun owners as gun sales and such would lead one to believe.

      The KKK comment is just some non sequitur nonsense that even if true would be meaningless. Who cares what someone’s ancestor’s did? (those descendants of the lynching KKK consider themselves emblematic of that 3%).

      I’d probably be considered one of the “3%” and so would Colion Noir. I doubt either one of us has an ancestor we could find who was in the KKK. I also bet both of us would consider ourselves emblematic of the “3%.” Primarily, someone who owns lots of guns, believes every citizen has a constitutionally protected right to own them, believes owning and carrying guns is safer and better for the country and individual than not doing so, believes doing so is a personal choice that shouldn’t be forced or denied anyone (with extremely limited exceptions), and wants to spread these beliefs.

Leave a Reply

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