Previous Post
Next Post

“Black people have been programmed to think that self-defense, our defense, is someone else’s responsibility—that good, honest, decent black people have nothing to do with guns, because guns are for white folks, police, and black criminals. I find it to be an absurd notion. The vast majority of gun laws in America have been aimed at trying to disarm black people.” – Conceal-and-carry trainer Gerald Vernon, Dismantling the stigma of guns [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Oh, he’s a gun nut, just “doesn’t fit the stereotype of a gun nut”. He certainly comes with cred in his Southside. If only the SunTimes or Trib had published this…

      • If they had, they might suddenly have had trouble getting access to City Hall. Same reason they don’t touch most of the corruption in the city.

      • The Chicago Reader has always had in-depth coverage of a lot of topics the Chicago politicians and other movers-and-shakers would not like to be seen. When I worked downtown I always looked forward to the fat free paper.

    • Given that the anti’s genuinely believe that outside of the military, police, or private security, only crazy people own firearms or would ever want to, it’s difficult squaring that with their politically correct posturing.

      Anybody else with a mental defect or limitation is off limits from being described in disparaging terms. We can’t call “slow” people retarded anymore. In an interesting example of how euphemisms build on and replace each other, we can’t call “special education” kids “SPEDS” anymore. Now they’re “special needs” (SPEEDS?) children. Hell, the ACLU spent much of the 1980’s suing to keep dangerous mental defectives from being institutionalized, freeing them to roam the streets and terrorize people, lest they suffer self-esteem issues for being labeled.

      Yet, it’s perfectly ok to call firearms owners “gun nuts” and capitalize on the mental deficiencies that the anti’s believe firearms owners possess.

      • Hell, the ACLU spent much of the 1980’s [sic] suing to keep dangerous mental defectives from being institutionalized, freeing them to run for public office and get elected or become CEOs of giant financial corporations.


        • I was living in Atlanta at the height of the push to throw all patients out of mental health facilities, and the “usual suspects” were all crowing what a great victory it was. Sharpton and Jesse had regular pressers at which they touted how “unfortunate victims were being released from this immoral and illegal incarceration” , I remember that specific sentence because they used repeatedly. Also remember Josea Williams excoriating his fellow Democrat “civil rights” champions for what he called their criminal actions in forcing mentally ill people into the streets of America. His was a lonely voice in the wildreness.

        • Tch, tch. Aren’t you keeping up with the current revisionism? Now, of course, the narrative is “Reagan cut mental health funding and threw all the crazy people out of their nice safe hospitals onto the streets.”

          And–much though I hate the thought of not blaming the ACLU for something–the trend of “deinstitutionalization” goes back to the 1950s. When the “antipsychotic” drugs were discovered, suddenly it seemed that at least some of the worst, most violent, most intractable psych ward inmates could be, if not wholly cured, then rendered manageable and in some instances even capable of holding down a job and taking care of themselves. Except they stopped taking the pills the minute they were out of the gates… this state of affairs goes back to around 1955, long predating either the Reagan Administration or the ACLU’s legal efforts, not that the ACLU helped matters either.

  1. Mr. Vernon is correct. In the law abiding black community, guns are only acceptable in three places.The pants of the thug, the holster of the cop, and the table next to the politcian on TV.

    The reason the thug is more accepted then the honest man? Because honest black men don’t need guns, according to the corrupted zeitgeist of MLK JR and other civil rights leaders who practiced nonviolence. Back in the 1960’s , their movements centered around racial and social equality.Over time their memories and organizations have been co-opted into a monstrosity which enforces a disarmed population as a social stereotype.

    See, it’s not poor choices which out most 18-25 year old black men in jail.No, it’s the white man’s guns, liquor, booze and strip clubs which did it.So if we ban the strip clubs, booze, and guns, black people will start shaking hands instead of shaking each other down.It’s trite, it’s wrong, and it’s bull. But thats the social reality in thousands of minority areas all over the country.

    • For what its worth MLK applied for a concealed weapons permit and was denied… He knew the reality of self defense and kept firearms nearby.

    • I don’t know where you get the notion that MLK preaching “nonviolence” meant he was anti gun. As noted already, he tried to get a carry permit and was denied. Moreover, I suggest you look up the “Deacons of Defense” and what they brought to the table. Non-violence was a notion from Ghandi that change could come from successful protests to humanize people who were oppressed. But even Ghandi is on record about having a gun to protect oneself.

      Thinly-veiled racism is still racism. And ignorance knows no color.

      • The myth of non-violence as the method that won freedom, whether for black Americans or for Indians enslaved by the British Raj (which replaced rule by the British East India Company) is a meme the powers that be encourage at all costs, so that those aspiring to self-determination or civil-rights will adopt such a philosophy. It certainly is not the one which worked.

        We know, thanks to the slow revelations of presidential material in the National Archives, that Lyndon Johnson was highly motivated by the riots of 63-67, and by King’s phone comment, recorded, that “if there are not more jobs for negroes I fear there will be race war.”

        India was no different. It was not Gandhi who terrified the British into withdrawal, but rather the Indian National Army (INA) which gained the allegiance of many many Indian soldiers, Sepoys, serving in the British Raj’s army. The increasing support of Indians for the INA became so great that the British forbade the BBC from covering the INA or discussing them, and the BBC complied. Then the British began the “JIFF” campaign. The INA, made up mostly of Indian prisoners of war captured by the Japanese (in Malaya, Singapore, Burma), got thousands of rifles from the Japanese. So the British tried to make the INA out as nothing but a “Japanese-Indian Fifth Column.” It didn’t work, and Indians know that the INA, including the female Rani of Jhansi Regiment, were the power behind the Indian National Congress and the eventual liberation.

        Non-violence is a very good cultural norm, and a good posture for the rebel leadership to take for public relations purposes. It is not how freedom gets won, as the American colonials well knew.

      • Nah, he’s talking about the zeitgeist- meaning the spirit of MLKs movement. Legacy might have been a better fit, but I got what he meant. It’s the revisionist history that changed MLK into the perfect Democrat from the real (and practical) man he was.

  2. That was published in the Chicago Reader?! Perhaps, we are winning. (As an aside, Father Pfleger, please go eff off.)

  3. Finished reading – Mr. Vernon seems a pretty reasonable and responsible gun owner and trainer and I hope his students go on to take advantage of their rights in a responsible way.

    The Reader is a fairly liberal publication so they can’t help but slip in the tired and rote anti-gun screeds here and there and some of the comments reflect that.

    One comments states that they just don’t understand the “obsession” people have with “willful ignoring of the ‘well-organized militia’ part of the Second Amendment (setting the right to bear arms in the context of an actual militia, not individual ownership)… …I may never understand it”.

    Following that a bit down is one of the best 2nd Amendment analogies I’ve seen – check this out from a commenter to this article:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Would it help if we imagined something other than guns as the fraught subject of the 2nd Amendment? How about medicine?

    “A well regulated Medical Profession, being necessary to the well-being of a healthy State, the right of the people to study biology and anatomy, shall not be infringed.”

    Given that wording, would anyone argue that only licensed medical professionals or those committing themselves to the practice should be permitted to study biology and anatomy?

    The key wording in both instances — hope I can avoid the charge of being glib — is “the people.” It’s not, “people in or entering a militia” or “people committing four years to med school.”


    I like it and am going to use it.

    • Well said Sir. Everyone Anti always forgets. It says “the people”. And if you bring that up. They get pissed off or refuse to acknowledge that each and every able bodied person in this country is the “Militia”. III%

    • The Bill of Rights is an addendum to the Constitution to put limits on the now powerful central government. Few people were willing to trust traditional common law to protect their liberties after the Crown’s abuse of those rights. The Constitution would not have been ratified without it.

      The Militia was authorized in Article I, Sectiom 8. The placement and structure of the Second Amendment is a clear indication that it is an indvidual right. If it was only meant to allow States to form militias then it would place in the language of the Tenth Amendment and worded something like “The States’ right to establish an indpenedent miliria force shall not be infringed by the Federal Government.”

      The Second Amendment properly understood is that in order to meet the requitements of Article 1, Section 8, the individual has to have unrestricted rights to own firearms. If you infringe on that right the militia can’t be formed. The idea that the right to keep and bear arms, or any part of the Bill of Rights pertaining to “the People” is a “collective right” is a Twentieth Century Progressive notion that the individual is only part of a larger group. To the Progressive “The People” are a fictional collective. The individual is just a cypher except of course the Progressive Nomenklatura.

      • >> The Bill of Rights is an addendum to the Constitution to put limits on the now powerful central government. Few people were willing to trust traditional common law to protect their liberties after the Crown’s abuse of those rights. The Constitution would not have been ratified without it.

        The Constitution was, in fact, ratified without it (in 1787, two years before the Bill was even composed, and four years before it was ratified) – that’s precisely why the Bill of Rights consists of a series of constitutional amendments.

        • Yes, but it was only ratified with the open and explicit promise that a Bill of Rights would quickly be passed. Had it failed several of the ratifications would have been revoked. Given the weak central government of the time, effective revocation would not have been difficult. This is especially true because three of the leading colonies, Massachusetts, New York, and especially Virginia, only ratified subject to an explicit demand that the ratification was subject to a later ratification of a particular bill of specific rights retained, limitations on the federal power. Patrick Henry was right, of course, that any power the central government could usurp, it would. And then some, as we see today.

  4. Great article. There were a few places where you could see the bias, (gun owners more likely to be murdered! …sure, if you include gang bangers as ‘gun owners…’) but a well-written article on a man who is bringing the idea of armed self-protection to people who have never had that option.

    His last quote, I think, should be printed on the CCW flag, if there was one. “In theory, it would be good if we didn’t need guns at all. It would really be good if the world could be at peace and people could treat other people with respect and dignity. That’s the world I want to live in. But that world don’t exist. Not on this planet. So I have to prepare myself to live in the world that exists.” That’s how I feel, having a gun in my house for home defense. When my CCW comes through, (Erie Co., NY, takes forever…) that’s my mindset for EDC. I, too wish we didn’t NEED guns to protect ourselves, and that violence was only an abstract concept instead of a horrible reality. But violence happens, and to my mind the politician who disarms a young woman is as bad as the rapist who takes advantage of her vulnerability.

    • Well said ninjaTED. Particularly your last sentence. Politicians who surround themselves with armed security, yet deny vulnerable people that same luxury are the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

  5. Here’s the example I like to use:

    “A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and possess books, shall not be infringed.”

    Under the progressive’s interpretation of the Second Amendment,
    would only “well educated people” be allowed to keep and possess books?
    Would book possession require a PhD, or would a Bachelors degree be sufficient?
    Would you also have to be a registered voter?
    Would you have to be old enough to vote to possess a book?

    • More importantly, does your example require that people be active students, teachers, or professors at nationally accredited colleges and universities before they can legally keep and possess books?

    • The way I read it – in 21st century English:

      “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • Bingo – another variant of the “medical” example given by a commenter to the article.

      There are so many logical examples that flow from that direction:

      Farmers being vital to a well fed state… …right of the people to grow their own food shall not be infringed.

      Plumbers being vital to the sanitation of a healthy state… …the right of the people to own plumbing tools shall not be infringed.

      The Building trades being vital to the housing of citizens and residents of the state… …the right to the people to learn of, own, and use construction tools shall not be infringed.

      It could be a drinking game!

      • Don’t get me started on the war against farmers! (not the john cougar leftarded crap, the actual tax and regulation war that has been leveled against small farms over the last 50 years)

  6. The Democrats want to make the world safer by disarming everybody but their DHS shock troops. Millions of hollowpoints, MRAPs in every county, drones in the air, what are they gearing up for? Why would any black person support this false icon media constructed Obama who has done nothing to help the wages of the working blacks, and is pushing to allow millions of illiterate illegal aliens have first stab at blue collar jobs?

    The black community is much like the German people of 1930s, being mystified and mislead by a demagogue who cares not one whit about them. The “bitter clingers” are being demonised as the enemy much like the Jews were in Nazi Germany. History is repeating itself however instead of a World War the outcome could very well be another Civil War, spurred by the racial division this radical communist regime is perpetuating.

  7. Shame these mrons never read or heard NO GUNS for Negro’s video

    JFPO no guns for negros,
    no guns for negros

    JPFO- No Guns for Negroes – download or view Cached
    … “No Guns for Negroes”, and more … Please help support our efforts and visit the MEMBERSHIP and/or DONATIONS pages at the JPFO Store. “No Guns for Negroes” is …

  8. Every man has a right, a duty to protect himself and his family and property.
    If they chose not to that is OK too.
    But just because a black man carries a gun doesn’t make him a potential criminal in my eyes at all.

  9. Thank God I broke free of the anti gun brainwashing. I hope to see more fellow blacks like myself to do the same thing Gerald Vernon is doing.

    • I’m one of them. Everybody no matter what race or cultural background deserves a chance to defend themselves.

    • I have a dream that one day in America a man will be judged by his willingness to stand up for his natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, not by the color of his skin.

  10. The whole crime problem can be linked to the lack of jobs and then to generations where there is no hope to lead what most people, regardless of race or religious persuasion, consider to be a normal life. It is much easier to secede from a culture rather than work hard and accept what comes. Inner city Blacks are a problem because of a lack of employment and self esteem. Generations of same have them finding other ways to make money and that is crime. Thanks mostly to Liberal minds that attitude has solidified and everyone is now a victim needing help from that good old slave owner called government.

    This fellow is a great example of how the trend can be stopped by reasoning and common sense. Thank you Mr. Vernon for being exceptional in your statement and purpose!

  11. the reporter is the same one Mayor Daley asked if he wanted a rifle shoved up his but after the McDonald ruling.

    Hes pretty good on our stuff

  12. That gentleman reminds me of no few NCOs and Officers(yea, capital O not little o)”of color” I served with in US Army. Problem is they were hugely out numbered by “brothers” who had accepted the common meme that all guns are bad and white people are the enemy. This is a long row to hoe, and I don’t see it getting much better anytime soon.

  13. I agree with what I assume was the intended meaning of Vernon’s quote. This is what I believe he really meant to say:

    The vast majority of gun laws in America have had the result of disarming honest black people.”

    • “The vast majority of gun laws in America have had the INTENDED result of disarming honest black people.”


      • “The vast majority of gun laws in America have had the INTENDED result of disarming honest law-abiding Americans.” FYFFY (Fixed your Fix for You)

        All Americans are entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights and while some bigots may have viewed anti-2A laws specifically as a means to deny arms to blacks, the greater theme has been by Progressives to deny arms to all civilians. We must embrace all races and ethnic groups into our fold while NOT making this an issue of race. This is a strictly political battle.

  14. This picture would have made more of a statement with him holding a real gun, not a blue training gun.

    • Disagree. This is a serious person, and doesn’t use real guns for “statement” purposes. Other than the “statement”: “Dude, you picked the wrong guy.”

      A very commonsensical corollary to the classic Four Rules.

      I respect him more for not making his guns fodder for the entertainment media.

      • Which four rules are you talking about, there are more than just (1) Four Rules?

        Four rules of leadership, four rules of gun safety, four rules of arithmetic?

        If you’re speaking about the four gun safety rules, which one(s) would have been broken had this been a real gun?

        • On TTAG, when I speak of the Four Rules without specification, I speak of Cooper’s Four Rules of gun safety.

          Rule 2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. [Mr. Vernon actually quoted this in the article.]

          How would you follow this rule in posing for a photo with a real gun?

          If necessary [cleaning, etc.] this can be relaxed [and indeed, the NRA modifies this to “in a safe direction.”]

          But strict adherence to the Four Rules would argue strongly against taking out and posing with a gun casually for the entertainment media.

        • “Never take your gun out and pose casually for the entertainment media” is not a firearm rule…

          Also, you never unholster your weapon? Ever? For any reason?

          And, when it is holstered is it always pointing at things you want destroy?

          If you take the rules this literal, ALL the time, you can never handle a weapon without breaking a rule, even holstered it’s muzzling things you probably don’t want to shoot, like the ground inches from you leg.

        • So, I guess every person carrying a rifle is breaking Cooper’s rules…

          How is having a loaded rifle slung across your body, or in your hands, whether pointing up or down, any different from what this man is doing?

  15. Self defense is a natural right! Depending on your local, state, and federal laws. And the time period you live in. Based on the whim of elected or appointed officials. Your mileage may vary. Nonviolence is a beautiful concept, but maybe if a friendly sniper was facing that boarding house across from the balcony in Memphis scanning windows for suspicious figures history would be a bit different. We can dream.

    • “Self defense is a natural right! Depending on your local, state, and federal laws. And the time period you live in.”

      Scooter, not to detract from the rest of your comment, but…

      Self defense is a natural right. It does not depend on local, state or federal laws because if it did it would be a man made/allowed PRIVILEGE, not a natural law. That said, at certain times in history local, state, federal, autocratic, dictatorial and monarchal governments have endeavored to inhibit to one degree or another, for their own purposes, the ability of their citizens to exercise that natural right. This is the best they can do, since the right CANNOT be repealed by the acts of man.

  16. Affirmative duty to protect. Cf. Reciprocal obligations;

    South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the State’s knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a “special relationship” giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain “special relationships” created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.);

    Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

    Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection … this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen … a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.);

    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.);

    Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.);

    Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.);

    Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965) (In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer’s alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.);

    Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.);

    Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) (A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department.

    The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. “The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled discretionary’ or ministerial.'”);

  17. The brainwashing has been going on for a long time, aided and abetted by the MSM that enjoys portraying black people as perpetual victims. The Al Sharpton Network is the worst in this regard, but all the others are close behind.

    Thanks to Kenn Blanchard, ColionNoir and other gun celebrities, a different voice can finally be heard in the black community. But until a majority sound like Mr. Vernon and not like Sharpton, the community will continue to descend into more crime and greater poverty.

  18. A couple of good articles on the same subject:

    “Black Gun Owners: Rock and a Hard Place” For many shooters in the black community gun ownership makes them a pariah.

    “For some blacks, gun control raises echoes of segregated past” Some African-Americans say tighter restrictions on guns rob them of their civil rights.

    • Hey, Danny? I miss the real Al Jazeera, before they got subsumed by this satellite TV sh*t. The print/online AJ had its political bias right out there for all to see and there reporting on events in the ME was excellent. They were just psychotically schizophrenic about Israel and America. What has been done to them since the Emir of Bahrain took it over is a crime.

  19. This part gave me hope:

    State senator Kwame Raoul, who helped write the new legislation, says he isn’t worried. … Raoul stresses that he’s never been a gun-ownership advocate. “But it can’t be as simple as, if you’re a true fighter against gun violence you’re for everything on this side of the line, and if you’re a proponent of gun ownership rights, you’re somehow for gun violence.”

    It’s good to see there are some non-gun people — politicians, no less — who see through the curtain of lies.

  20. The racist roots of gun control has been an open secret going back some time now. Clayton Cramer has done more than most on scholarly research into the topic:

    What Clayton has long since found out is that in many US States, there were very, very few gun control laws in the states until the prospect arose of free black men being able to show up in a state and carry guns. Even in the 1960’s, some of the gun control laws passed in some states were in response to black people demonstrating with guns.

    The issue of black citizens owning guns even makes its way into the Dredd Scott SCOTUS decision. You can read therein that the idea of black men being able to own guns was worrisome to Justice Taney.

  21. African American culture is an insult to Dr.King. It has degraded to the point where most of the things a decent human being can do is “being white” or “being a sellout”. Hell, I’m an American with latin american background and even from my culture of origin, simply for studying I was referred to back in highschool as a “wana be whiteboy”. Soon after I cut ties with all those cultures.

    Is a shame really, to be a good person is being “white”, being a good student is seen in bad light, not the usual nerds vs jocks eternal struggle.

    This resonates with me, every latin American culture is socialist in nature, brainwashed since little to believe guns are bad, and you guessed it, only criminals have them. Police do so to but they arrive to pick up the shattered remains of someone’s life after they got shot over 10 bucks.

  22. The Black Panther party tried, but ultimately failed to change American Blacks on their perception of armed self-defense. I’m talking about the REAL Black Panthers, not the Disney/Intel front version we have now.

    The reasons why are naturally quite complex, but the biggie is the FBI, who actually ASSASSINATED many, and threw the rest to rot in prison on trumped-up charges.

  23. I live just outside of Chicago and a few months ago the state rep held an informational Q&A session about concealed carry. The state rep is about as Chicago Machine as you can get and his views on gun control reflect that. About 80% of the population that showed up was black. I think the most telling thing that happened during the Q&A was that it was mentioned that gang members were currently carrying illegally and that there are quite a few otherwise law abiding citizens that carry as well. A show of hands was made for anyone who had ever carried, for self protection, either legally or illegally. About half the hands in the room went up including all of the state rep’s staff. The point being, was that what this law created a route for that behavior to be legal and not subject to UUW.

    A fairly comforting thing to find out that lots of people refuse to comply, even in the heart of the beast for gun control.

  24. I’m currently reading Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms (Johnson) – I would highly recommend it if you are interested in the topic. It is enlightening to see the history of the black communities reversal on guns. Most illuminating was that civil rights leaders saw no conflict between the armed self-defense and non-violent protest – the current views are largely a side effect of the liberal high-jacking of the Black vote and the relative success of the civil rights movement.

    • Another interesting book is Negroes With Guns by Robert F. Williams, Wayne State University Press, June 1, 1998. Your library probably has a copy.

      • Two excellent volumes that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of, and even when told of them most people will simply refuse to read or accept them. Therein lies the majority of the problem.

  25. I am constantly impressed and grateful for the depth of information and intellectual integrity in debate and respect for opinions here at TTAG, especially on the political and historical facts, along with the technical aspects of guns that I’d of course expect. Many thanks to the erudite posters for sharing, in this article and many others. I am learning so much.

    And thanks to Mr Vernon for speaking up – I am sure he has been doing it for some time, but the StateRunMedia doesnt generally have much interest in hearing anything that would tempt others from leaving the liberal plantation, sorry for the non-PC innuendo, but its true enough that its worth the invidious comparison.

    And I know from life experience there are a lot more Mr Vernons out there, and young men who want to learn from his example- so thanks again TTAG for being another way to get the word out, from the Mr Vernons, to those who would look up to them. The Revs Al, Wright, Jessie, Farrakhan, and other old con-men of their ilk are on their way out, thank goodness, being replaced by real men of honor, like Mr Vernon, who speak the truth.

Comments are closed.