Black Gun Owner: Liberals Lack the Capacity to Discuss Gun Rights

“I am black and transgender. Being black (or any minority) and a gun owner can be described thus: On one hand, you’re told that you’re oppressed and that the country does not look after your interests. On the other, it’s said that if you decide to defend yourself, it will backfire.

“I tend to not discuss guns with fellow liberals anymore. They have shown they lack the capacity to discuss the issue with integrity, maturity and nuance.” – Naomi Daniels in the New York Times‘I Am the ‘Good Guy With a Gun’’’: Black Gun Owners Reject Stereotypes, Demand Respect

comments

  1. avatar No one of consequence says:

    This right here should scare the progressives down to their marrow. (But that’s just a side benefit.) It’s great to hear and for all the right reasons.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the 6.5mm Creedmoor" PR says:

      “This right here should scare the progressives down to their marrow.”

      It ought to, and wonder-of-all-wonders, it came from the NYT!

      There’s just one *tiny* problem…

      You won’t see another article like that from the NY Times for *many* moons. But if you accuse them of Leftist bias, they point at that article and proclaim “See? We’re not biased!”.

      An anti-gun to pro-gun ratio of 90-10 doesn’t make you fair, NY Times. It loudly proclaims your blatant hypocrisy…

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        That any ‘progressive’ newspaper refuses to print any truth, even when it comes from a favored group(as in this case), is not a problem, it is the solution. When man falls so far that their media can only be trusted to lie like a rug, then these liars need to be replaced by something else. That is what you are seeing right now. The dinosaur media fighting fang and claw to stay in power(and not become extinct), as all petty dictators always have, throughout history.
        That’s the confusion and strife you see all around. It’s always chaos for a while as the old and useless get replaced by the new and vibrant. The beautiful part for us(POTG) is, WE are the new and vibrant this time around, and the NYT, CNN etc., are the soon to be extinct. It is to be expected that the old will fight as hard as they can to not be taken down, but any hunter who has watched two big bucks fight over some does knows how this movie ends. The old ones usually win, but only for a little while. Then they get replaced. Usually in a big battle.
        I heartily recommend hunting for that alone. There is no sight on Earth quite like watching two big bucks battle it out. Only the old UFC, when the Gracy’s ran it, was in the ballpark. MMA today is a sad remnant of what it once was. Now, it’s just WWF or WWE in a different shaped ring.

        1. avatar Paul says:

          Uh, I’m pretty sure CNN posted record profits in 2017 (and most likely will for 2018 as well, though we don’t have those numbers quite yet)

          Also, the Republican Party as a whole is aging. Younger voters are voting Democrat, Progressive, and Libertarian (when they vote at all), and a much higher percentage of them are registered independent as opposed to previous generations.

          From a world-wide perspective, “the left” in America would be considered quite centrist by most standards and metrics.

          Our best bet for keeping our right to bear arms is for all of us, individually, to educate as many people as possible about guns. Most anti-gun people are simply just ignorant about guns. All they know about guns comes from movies, TV, and sensationalised news stories that get spread on every outlet (yes, Fox News included). Be friendly, be open, and leave all your other politics out of it. The more minorities and “liberals” we can bring into the gun community, the more they will stop supporting politicians who seek to strip our 2nd Amendment rights. It would be quite hard for a Democrat politician to get up on stage and talk about sweeping gun control to a crowd of blacks, latinos, women, LGBTQ, etc. who are telling that politician that they need their 2nd Amendment Rights to defend themselves and their families.

          But again, it starts with each of us individually. We need to do a better job of reaching across the aisle in our daily lives. We need to grow the number and diversity of gun owners in this country, it’s the only way we win this fight.

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          Uh, paul. Uh, I’m pretty sure that your ‘source’, for data on CNN is CNN itself.
          I’m… uh, pretty sure that’s not a reliable source. Or even an informed opinion. Perhaps, uh, it’s an UNiformed opinion?

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          “the Republican Party as a whole is aging.”

          And yet, the top Dem leaders (Pelosi, Saunders, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Hitlery, Fauxcahontas, etc.) were born before the Flood. Okay, that’s a slight exaggeration. And yet, the average Democrat congressman is 61, the Republicans average 57.

          The problem is that old Democrats never die. They just smell that way.

        4. avatar Kenneth says:

          Ralph:
          Thx for noticing another of paul’s many errors. Considering that his main point seemed to be that people age with time, I was going to do the old Mitch Hedberg gag: “People ask me if they want to see a picture of them when they were younger. Every picture of you was when you were younger!” but I thought better of it. I thought paul might take offense to jokes, since he seems to be trying to be serious.
          That brings to mind another old quote: “Life is way too serious to take seriously.”

        5. avatar Anymouse says:

          WWE is a stunt show with a soap opera storyline. UFC is a real contest. There’s a reason you can bet on UFC and not WWE.

  2. avatar C.S. says:

    “Law-abiding black people are just as motivated to defend themselves, their families and their homes as any other racial group. The right to bear arms has played a vital role in the lives of blacks for generations, and it will continue to do so.”
    — Damon D. Colbert

    But, the stupidity of the comments section in that article…

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      The average (not all) NYT reader is a closed-minded, bigoted liberal who considers anyone who disagrees with them to be demented or stupid. They have no interest in open discussions and refuse to believe that people are entitled to their own opinions.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        It’s obvious if you don’t agree with me, there must be something wrong with you. That’s an odd statement but it’s what they believe

    2. avatar Jon says:

      Yep, those comments are pretty ignorant. Most are about the “myth of a good guy with a gun”.

      1. avatar Jack says:

        Do they not consider cops a “good guy” when the cops show up with the guns?

        1. avatar Jon says:

          I suspect that they do not “think” much. They make decisions based solely on feelings and emotions.

        2. avatar Jon says:

          TTAG – bring back the edit function or I will boycott this site for… five hours.

  3. avatar Elaine D. says:

    I would say that *some* liberals lack that capacity. Depends on where you live and the culture there. “Typical Texas gun toting Democrat” is a fairly common self descriptor around here.

    I do – directly and often – engage other lefties in my circle in the discussion about firearms, because it’s important, and because for the most part the ones who object to guns the most are also the most privileged – they have always lived in gated communities and such and always been middle to upper middle class. In short, they have always lived lives where the police come when they call them and they will be treated not only fairly but with gloved hands. As such, just like any other human being, they tend to not have thought at all about the very different experiences of those of us who are not relatively wealthy and favored by the system. Thus far, with only a few exceptions, I’ve been able to leverage the platform of inclusivity and diversity to get people to think about their own privilege in terms of never really needing self defense. More often than not, it’s been a productive and respectful discussion.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      I have a liberal friend who is a strong 2A supporter. When he uses the “check your privilege” argument against anti-gunners in Facebook discussions heads tend to explode. It’s a very good point that causes some serious cognitive dissonance among ant-gunners.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Warfab: Oh yeah. And yet that’s the important part of the discussion. If a big hunk of us Blues are going to be ranting about privilege alla time, the first thing is to check our own. Anyone who isn’t willing to do that isn’t really a Democrat, just an elitist. I tend to believe that there are few true anti-gunners; only a lot of folk who haven’t needed one. Yet. I mean, if you’re counting on people with guns to protect you at any point in the chain, you’re not actually anti-gun, you just don’t want to own one yourself, which is OK, of course.

        I also point out the cultural and class prejudice that urban dwellers have against rural folk who tend to be the gun savvy ones. Yes, it’s uncomfortable for people to have that pointed out, but if diversity is what we are really going for here like we say, then that needs to be looked at and demolished for the privileged bullshit that it is.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          Many people who “don’t choose to own one(gun)” are just people responsible enough to understand their limitations, people who might not trust themselves in a stressful situation or that do not want a household member that has problems to have access to a family weapon. I applaud people that can doubt themselves.

          Possession of a firearm comes with a great personal responsibility, carrying one everyday even more. A little training and reading goes a long way, proper education about firearm safety and U.S. history about how guns have kept us free are very important for all people here in the U.S. Gun owners need to show people on the fence about gun ownership that they have the personal responsibility to have and use them.
          That will help assure support against the people that want to squash our God given rights in the name of safety.

        2. avatar WARFAB says:

          Multiculturalism is great and admirable…. until we’re talking about the different cultures present within the United States. Then there’s only one culture that’s acceptable, and those who aren’t part of it are “deplorables” or “dregs”. Funny how that works.

      2. avatar Swarf says:

        When my friends/family/coworkers post anti-gun stuff, I generally put up some version of “All gun control is racist, classist, anti-woman, or all three.” That tends to put a pause in the conversation.

      3. avatar Broke_It says:

        Oh for fuck’s sake, enough with this privilege checking. Where was my privilege when I was abducted and held in mexico? Exactly where did that privilege manifest itself afterwards when as a cis gendered white male I was unable to hold any of my abusers to account? Privilege certainly didn’t help me get a job having no diploma (I missed high school over all of this) or work history. There’s reality, and there’s this delusional PC nonsense of no one can be better than another/we all matter. Reality sucks, but at I least I don’t look like a fucking moron telling people to check this imaginary construct. I don’t see tents but I’m surrounded by god damn clowns every day.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          Not that you asked me, BrokeIt, but for what it’s worth – I see privilege as being many things that are not only about skin color or gender identification.

          I consider myself to be a privileged person. Even though I’m female and minority. Why? For one thing, I got to get a good education even if I had to borrow money to do it. Genetically, I got lucky and am tall and thin and I still have all my teeth. I’m decent looking enough that I’m pretty sure I benefit from Tall Thin Reasonably Pretty Girl Privilege.

          I’m intelligent, enough to earn an advanced degree, which is something I didn’t earn. I’m socially fairly adept. Most of these privileges are things I didn’t earn. I might have earned my degree but I didn’t earn the brains and opportunities that let me succeed in school. I might work to keep myself thin and fit but I didn’t earn the genetics that make that pretty easy for me.

          I look at privilege as being pretty much anything I didn’t earn that means I don’t have to deal with certain types of shitty judgment. I have plenty of privilege and am willing to own it.

        2. avatar Broke_It says:

          So it’s worse than I thought. Privilege actually means who you are. Check who you are. Kinda makes more sense now but shit that’s bleak. It’s all a plinko game and you’re describing basically luck and genetics. There’s no reason to “check” that for others. Fascinating, yet familiar. I’ve seen this game of words having flexible meanings before.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Well, it does sound like you have worked very hard since your mid teens or earlier, to make every single wrong/stupid decision possible, so that you can now bitch about being misunderstood. Or did I misunderstand?

        4. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Broke

          That’s the problem of society I guess. Some are more lucky, they get born with stuff. Looks or money or smarts or they were born into the right family or at the right time and place. Or, like me, they can leverage the luck they got in the lottery to get a little more, enough to move up a social class, get the pieces of paper, whatever it is that gains one status in that particular society.

          Many others are not so lucky. So in attempting to make policy for a society, do you just let the lucky ones keep on winning and scooping up all the good stuff? That stinks. So do you level everyone so that no one has a reason to even try to be excellent because there’s nothing to aspire to? That stinks as well. Both of those ways of doing things stink. There’s no ideal solution.

        5. avatar Broke_It says:

          You most certainly misunderstood Larry. For someone who pretends to be about freedom you seem to have no problem with minors being bought and sold. My only mistake was having parents that bought into this new age self realization cult bullshit. I was merely pointing out that so called white privilege hasn’t seemed to exist in my world.

        6. avatar Broke_It says:

          Elaine, we are on a rock with finite resources so competition is a requirement, not an option. Your first suggestion is spot on. It sucks but strongest survive. Otherwise, well lets just say I’ve seen it get pretty lord of the flies over peanut butter or who has the most cereal in a bowl. To each according to his needs doesn’t work for me comrade. Don’t pay lip service to altruism, it doesn’t exist. Nor can it really when boiled down to it’s essence.

        7. avatar victor camp says:

          Thank you i just had a eye opening thing happen tonight. I white guy tried to follow and attack a girl on her way from school here in Sacramento if it would not had been for me he could have done god knows what. I could have walked away i could have closed my eyes but yet i stood as i always do and sent the girl on her way. I followed him to make sure he did not follow her also. but here’s the thing it hurts to no end thinking about what i would have done to him to protect her. I took a oath when i joined the Marines 40 some years ago and i hold that oath close to my heart but i find many that can no understand that oath. The thank you for your service is to me like they dont understand unless you’ve been there. but now this is happening as a black man i can not and will not let those that pray upon the weak do harm if i have to lay my life my freedom down in order to protect someone how is in need.

        8. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @BrokeIt

          Agree about the lord of the flies thing. People get competitive about resources they don’t even need – it’s a status thing at that point. We seem to be quite status driven as a species and dis-inclined to share unless it’s hammered into us constantly from birth and even then our tendency is to go for stuff for us and ours and leave the others to the dogs. You won’t ever get past this part of human nature, all we can do is work with it I guess.

          I dunno, I get the lucky continuing to be lucky and all that. But how much luck does any of us need? At a certain point there’s no need for more money or stuff or whatever it is. It doesn’t take anything away from my life to share with someone who didn’t get the lucky breaks I did if I’m doing OK, in fact it enhances it. I don’t like “let them eat cake” as a rule. That’s just me. If I’m doing OK I’d rather see more go to people who have the potential but not the luck to equalize things a bit. Plus it reduces the problems associated with inline breeding, so to speak, which was pointed out to me by one of my clients the other day, a proper self identified redneck and farm boy who has just about the most interesting ideas about our culture and political system I’ve ever heard. His exact words were, “One of our problems is that we’re all trying to be special and get attention, but a diamond in a goat’s ass is special and gets attention!”

        9. avatar MarkPA says:

          I don’t want to be Polyanaish about this, but I’m unconvinced by personal observation that America is as fully prejudiced as the leftists make it out to be. It’s not because of my own personal observations about myself; rather it’s observations about others.

          I imported my bride 46 years ago. At the time, her English was good-enough to work, but not great. We both went looking for jobs. She, with no degree and obvious Latina characteristics, got a better job than I did with a degree and all my White Privilege. Within a year, that wage rate relationship inverted and I made more money than she did for most of the next 40 years. Nevertheless, she did plenty well enough. In the last few years I was working, she was making more than I was – again.

          Frankly, no one seemed to care much that she was Latina or that her English wasn’t perfect. Strangely, her employers seemed to be much more interested in the fact that she did her job well. Today, she is making plenty of money and I’m Brown Privileged to live very comfortably reading TTAG.

          Our kids have done well; better than we have. Notwithstanding that they are Latino. They overcame their handicaps (which they certainly had) through one hell of a lot of perseverance. A characteristic they inherited from their mother, not me.

          My observations of the workplace are that no one much cares about someone’s race, or sex. Greedy people are vastly more interested in whether a person is able to make a contribution to the business goal. My wife’s observations are that race and sex seem to get an extra point or two for sake of diversity.

          The above notwithstanding, a child born into poverty – or into an impoverished culture – starts out life way beyond the 8-ball. Any problem the kid might have doesn’t get recognized. If it were recognized, there would be no resources made available to remediate the problem. There is pretty much nothing that society does to make-up for that impoverishment before school (or Head Start). What should we make of this?

          Early childhood development experts tell us that the first 5 or so years of life are critical. Mis that window of opportunity and much of the potential for development is squandered. Why aren’t we all inquiring into children’s lives during these first 5 years? Is there some taboo about this?

          Then, after the 5’th year, responsibility for the child’s environment is divided between home and school; public school. At this juncture, my thesis is that the window of opportunity has closed. Yet, if I’m mistaken here, then we have to inquire after the efficacy of public schools. Clearly, there is a taboo about looking too closely at this. It’s fine to complain that we aren’t paying public school teachers and administrators enough. However, private schools seem to do better than public schools with no significant salary differentials to explain the performance difference.

          If we cracked this problem we would recover much: taxes on income not earned; welfare not paid; prisons not filled; criminal justice workers not employed; and, cost of crimes not committed. The payoff should be vastly higher than the cost.

          I’m convinced that government can’t possibly provide the right intervention. Democrats wouldn’t want to provide the right intervention. They want to perpetuate dependency on government. In America there is plenty of money to solve the problem. That money can’t possibly be put to the task as long as it’s taxed-away to be spent on all the vested interests. It matters not that the vested interests are crony-capitalists or government employed social-workers or school teachers.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Elaine B
      You are an exception to the rule. Most liberals who venture to TTAG runaway frightened with their tails between their legs. They are thin-skinned and incapable of making a cogent argument.

      I like having Liberals coming on TTAG. I like having social intercourse with them. They scare very easily.

      Liberals (their color doesn’t) who are anti-gun are as bigoted and as racist as the Klu Klux Klan. They have the same goal as the Klu Klux Klan. The only way to change their mind is if a pro-gun liberal, if you can find one, will addresses their arguments.

      1. avatar KenW says:

        I suspect most democrats who have a positive viewpoint on guns are part of that group known as Blue Dog Democrats. There used to be lots of them down here and some politicians at one time were known to be Blue Dogs. Thanks to the way primaries now weed out folks who are not at the screaming outer edge Blue Dogs will never make it to the General election. Same things happens on the Republican side. As a result I sometimes have to hold my nose and decide which politicians viewpoints are not to extreme. Or leave the ballet choice blank or write in Bozo.

      2. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Chris

        Yup. I’ve had lefties tell me that I must be in an abusive relationship because the guy I’m with is a Republican and a cop. I’ve had people tell me that I must not be in my right mind to love someone who votes Red. I’ve had people tell me that I must be missing part of my brain to not understand that all people who vote Red are “abhorrent human beings,” which actually got said to me last week.

        My answer to this is as follows: If you are in support of any system that does not allow dissent, regardless of what you’re not allowing dissent about, I’m going to call you out as un-American. My positioning, as unpopular as it is, is important because I already know you will refuse to listen to any good point about guns from anyone who votes Red. This is why I have to be the one to speak to you about this. And as a Dem you are required to listen to me because I’m part of that demographic you are using to advance the party platform: female and minority, whether you like it or not. I realize that this all makes you exceptionally uncomfortable, and that’s part of the whole point. If you’re in your comfort zone with all your little friends who are just like you, you aren’t growing, you aren’t learning, you aren’t challenging yourself; you’re just picking a Democratic platform because it supports your chosen lifestyle, rather than caring about the real work of how to address a malfunctioning culture or political system.

        1. avatar WARFAB says:

          People on the right tend to think that people on the left have bad or incorrect ideas. People on the left tend to think that people on the right are just bad people. It makes constructive dialogue difficult. You’re in an interesting position on the 2A topic.

          There was a recent article describing the phenomenon and now I can’t find it. 🙁

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Elaine B
          Its not easy to find a person who likes guns as much as you do. Good luck to you and your man. I believe guns can bring people together. But Liberals , the enemies of Liberty, want to stop strangers from finding out they have more in common with each other than they think.

          A, REAL man, supports a Ladies night policy. A weak man, homosexual, or not, does not support woman learning about their rights or support them meeting others of like mind.

          Last Call For Free ‘Ladies Night’ Shooting Range

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          A lot of the freakazoid class today will feel deeply complimented if you call them un-American. Just sayin’.

        4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Larry in TX
          I prefer to call them America haters. Liberals hate this country.

        5. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Warfab

          If you come across that article again, I would absolutely be interested in seeing it.

          @Chris

          Well, I think that the issue really is society – the downward shift in cultural values that leads people to think that “someone else” should always be responsible for things. That’s across the board in this country. I’ve seen a huge change in that during my lifetime. I find that increasingly as a therapist I am teaching things about personal responsibility, morals, ethics, adult behavior, that people used to learn in school, church, and from their families. This responsibility has now fallen to mental health professionals like me because schools, churches, and families no longer do that work.

          I mean what is there to say about a culture that now has a common term: “adulting” – as though being or acting like an adult is an option, not a necessity. It’s extremely problematic and related to an overall trend of passivity and bullshit behavior that makes and keeps people weak both mentally and physically as well as trapped in eternal adolescence.

          Guns require responsibility, quite a lot of it if you conceal carry, and we’re in a cultural period of avoiding responsibility as much as possible, so to me all this is just part of that larger picture.

    3. I still don’t understand why any gun owner votes democrat, when in D.C., the democrats all talk anti-gun. Do the pro 2A democrats in blue states just not read the national news?

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        Because of the rest of what the Republicans stand for and do.

        I know, I know, I’m totally misinformed about Republicans.

        But… if it walks like a duck and throws tantrums about walls like a duck…

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Both parties suck balls. Neither of them are champions of liberty.

          But only one of them is campaigning on an explicit promise to cripple part of the Bill of Rights, and we all know which one that is. That’s a dealbreaker for me. It should be a dealbreaker for anyone who wants to retain their Second Amendment rights.

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          They aren’t really big on the rest of the Bill of rights, either. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from search and seizure without due process, and I’m sure there are a few I’m missing. What you said is true, that neither party truly supports individual liberty. But the core of the dems agenda is to remove limits on government power, to take as much power away from individuals as they can and concentrate it in a central government.

          Most Dems may not think of it that way, but that’s the issue. I’ve floated this idea to a bunch of Dems I know, that if they are apoplectic about who is currently in the White House, the Federal gov. already has way more power than it was supposed to have. But they don’t seem to resonate with that, because they don’t really have a problem with authoritarianism per se.

      2. avatar UpInArms says:

        Giving a vote to a Democrat is the same thing as giving a bottle of booze to an alcoholic. It makes that particular voter an enabler.

    4. avatar MarkPA says:

      @Elaine: You self-identify as liberal or leftist. Are you of that political opinion because:
      A. – you view government as the desired agent for economic improvement of the less-advantaged?
      or
      B. – you view redistribution as the desired means for economic improvement of the less-advantaged?

      Especially in the latter case, I encourage you to read “Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World” by Deirdre N. McCloskey. She has a thesis to explain how economies (especially in the Netherlands, UK, America, France and others) achieved incredible growth in the 18’th, 19’th and 20’th centuries. And, most importantly, how this growth augured to the enormous benefit of the poor in these countries.

      Having been a student of the dismal science since 1970, this has been the most exciting book I’ve ever read on the topic.

      I would be most grateful if you would acknowledge having seen this suggestion (even if you demure from adding this selection to your already long reading list.)

      Apologies to other readers of TTAG for this personal message. Even so, others interested in economic equality might consider this title.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Mark

        Big question. I like some of the things about the Democratic Party. I like their health care proposals more. I like the at least lip service attention to inclusiveness and a diverse demographic because that means that at least they have to pretend like they listen to me when I speak and that my contribution is important. I like the fact that at least on the surface, there’s an openness to people who are on a different spiritual path than Christianity. I like the pro-choice thing because there isn’t a single piece of research that shows that kids that aren’t wanted tend to have great lives. But I actually think that all forms of birth control, including sterilization, should be free and widely available, because it’s cheap, it’s all a known quantity at this point, and it would probably solve a lot of the abortion issue. Some people might call that socialized medicine but from a practical standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.

        I’m about education and healthcare both becoming less expensive. People should not be going into bankruptcy or never able to buy a home because they got sick or went to school. That crap is just wrong no matter what. Not that I think socialized medicine is totally the answer, but insurance companies making this much money and denying care to people paying out the wazoo for it is just wrong on so many levels.

        I don’t know if redistribution is the answer – it doesn’t seem to have worked elsewhere. Instead I’d like to see the return of trades and vocations to the US, trade schools, programs that give people good paying work and benefits who don’t necessarily need to go to college. Our society has moved so much into the Information Age that old school skills are not respected anymore, but we need people to build bridges and roads and make stuff just as we always have. Yet we outsource that work to other countries instead of training our own people to do it and paying them a decent wage for good solid work.

        Research has shown over and over that human happiness in this country is at its highest at about an $80k a year income. Below that people struggle too much. Above that people have more and more expensive stuff but they are not actually happier and in fact past a certain point they start to become much less happy. If most of the population could get into that target zone, by dropping the price of certain things and providing real pathways to good paying employment, it is likely that our country as a whole would be a happier place for a lot of people. Even though it’s Socialist, I’m watching these new hybrids in SE Asia of socializing medicine and health care and then leaving everything else free market. It’s too new to know how it will look in 50 or 100 years but it seems to be working right now. Then again, it works because overall it’s a much more communal culture than ours with much stronger family and community ties.

        I’ll check out that book. You have a hell of a reading list, jeez. How can I join YOUR book club? You’ve got all the good stuff!

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          @ Elaine: So gracious of you to acknowledge my suggestion for your reading list.

          “I like the at least lip service attention . . . ” Astute of you to recognize it might be little more than lip service. For my part, show me the efficacy and efficiency. I’ll live without the lip service.

          “I actually think that all forms of birth control, including sterilization, should be free and widely available, because it’s cheap, it’s all a known quantity at this point, and it would probably solve a lot of the abortion issue. Some people might call that socialized medicine but from a practical standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.” Here, I am compelled to agree with you. If someone doesn’t want children for me to support with my taxes then I’m more than willing to fund their desire for contraception. Call me unprincipled; but I’m not Catholic and I’m more interested in efficacy and economy than a small issue of whether contraception is a private vs public responsibility.

          “I’m about education and healthcare both becoming less expensive. People should not be going into bankruptcy or never able to buy a home because they got sick or went to school. That crap is just wrong no matter what.”

          We ought to focus first on waste and inefficiency. Where we are is (I think) largely because of an over-emphasis on government funding (and consequently control) over both education and healthcare. We are in so deep now that I’m at a loss as to how to dig ourselves out. I’m convinced, nevertheless, that we have to stop digging.

          Probably government is going to have to do something to start filling in the hole. It will have to make decisions to stop doing things that are counter-productive and, instead, do something that might be compensating. E.g., “vouchers” seem to be a marvelously good solution to the kinds of problems involved where our society wants to make some redistributive intervention. At least the government’s hand is visible because it’s “on-balance-sheet”. (I hope you recognize this misnomer; it would be better described as “on-income-statement”.)

          “I don’t know if redistribution is the answer – it doesn’t seem to have worked elsewhere.” You noticed! Very astute of you. That should be alarming; should call your attention to any skepticism that leftist policies deserve enthusiastic, unquestioning, support.

          “I’d like to see the return of trades and vocations to the US, trade schools, programs that give people good paying work and benefits who don’t necessarily need to go to college. Our society has moved so much into the Information Age that old school skills are not respected anymore, . . . ” You are making a valid point. Frankly, I have grave doubts that government has any role in urging any bias in what people do with their lives. Why should government decide whether a young person should pursue a career as a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, doctor, lawyer or tribal chief? We have an “establishment clause” about religion; shouldn’t we have such a clause about what individuals choose to do with their lives?

          . . . by dropping the price of certain things . . . ” Why should we be interested in artificially manipulating the price of anything? Should we observe that there is some artificial influence (externality) on a price then we ought to look into fixing that artificiality. E.g., if a polluter transfers a cost of polluting onto the public at large then we might consider a tax that would tend to compensate for the under-priced product. If a producer creates an benefit for which it isn’t able to compensate, then maybe a subsidy is justified. (E.g., the USPostal Service probably creates more value to society than it can charge for; and, its subsidy might be justified.) FDR deliberately manipulated prices; economists and common-sense argued that these efforts were misguided and foolish.

          “I’m watching these new hybrids in SE Asia of socializing medicine and health care and then leaving everything else free market. It’s too new to know how it will look in 50 or 100 years but it seems to be working right now.” Look at efficacy and efficiency as your guide. If someone – ANYone – is pouring resources into an effort that proves totally useless or counterproductive then that should be alarming. One should continuously question whether resources might be better spent doing something differently than the way one is doing them now.

          Government is just not good at efficacy or efficiency. (In my brief, 9 month, stint in government I recognized that my agency’s reporting system didn’t work for me. I fixed my problem by using an alternative system they were running but largely ignored. It took several more years before that agency reached the my conclusion and abandoned their old system to adopt my preferred system. The agency had continued with an ineffective and expensive system for decades when a much better and cheaper solution was under their noses the whole time.)

          Private enterprise or philanthropy are much better. Suppose we – as the People – think something ought to be done to promote culture or welfare. Which things? How much? Why do we imagine that answers to such questions can best be answered by the institution of “a republican form of government”? Why not through private philanthropy? Do we fear “free-riding”? If so, how about allowing taxpayers to take a tax credit for philanthropy. Taxpayers will decide to pay taxes for “guns” or contribute philanthropy to get the “butter” they think most worthy. They will give to Salvation Army or Red Cross according to which they think is more efficient.

          “I’ll check out that book.” I’d be delighted to buy it for you if I could know your address.

          “You have a hell of a reading list, jeez. How can I join YOUR book club? You’ve got all the good stuff!” So kind of you to so remark. A warped mind is a terrible thing to waste. That’s why I’m always interested in finding a new insight. Tragically, leftists have enormous good intentions which seem to turn to ashes in practice. Conservatives, unfortunately, aren’t as open to possibilities that might be worth considering.

          Such impasses have a horrible propensity to lead to shooting wars. The gun-control debate is a good example of this potential. I see nearly all potential for gun-control rapidly evaporating. This is nearly impossible for those uninvolved with guns to recognize. And so, we carry-on talking about “background checks” instead of taking up a potentially promising discussion of how to: identify and treat depression; how to intervene in early-childhood environments to reduce the propensity to pursue a violent or criminal life.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          @Elaine: One more thought:

          “. . . People should not be going into bankruptcy or never able to buy a home because they got sick or went to school. That crap is just wrong no matter what. . . .”

          Such a sentiment is understandable; and, yet, it’s very subjective. How one feels about such an issue depends a great deal on what one feels the proper role of government vs individual responsibility might be.

          Recall the thoughts of Hobbs and John Locke concerning man “in a state of nature” vs. man “in civilization”. In nature man was little or no different than any other species. It’s survival of the fittest, or the most fit to adapt. Predators overcame prey.

          When men associated with one-another and instituted government among them they came to some agreement. Shall we assume that agreement was that government was intended to make life worse for them? Or, ought there be some principle of: Government, do no harm! ?

          How each individual reasons about such questions, we ought to imagine that government ought to do no more harm than individuals collectively did to one-another in a state-of-nature.

          Kindly google the stories of Shaneen Allen and Carol Bowne, each of whom crossed paths with New Jersey’s gun-control laws. NJ has no right-to-arms; and, it works diligently to find every possible means to deprive it’s residents and visitors of their right to arms. Shaneen’s life was ruined; probably irreparably. Carol’s life ended at knife-point in her driveway waiting futilely for her prints to be checked by the FBI.

          Criminals are at liberty to bear arms in NJ because they are willing to defy the laws. They will go to prison, should that sentence be imposed upon them. Yet, there is no way for any ordinary citizen to get a NJ permit to carry. Only retired cops, judges, prosecutors, generous contributors to the Democrat party can get a CWP.

          Each of us is at some risk – great or small – of a criminal attack. There is little government can do to prevent such an occurrence. Under our system of government, there is little police and the criminal justice system are willing to do to prevent such an occurrence. These are simply the brutal facts of life whether in nature or civilization.

          My philosophy is that government should strive to avoid making matters worse. In the cases of Shaneen and Carol, NJ’s efforts strived to make matters worse.

          There is ample room for disagreement about what gun controls might be – on balance – worthwhile. I have permits from 5 states. I do not object to the hoops I had to jump through to get these permits. (NICS check, prints, live-fire qualification, buying land in a state where I had no other need to own property). In each case, these states did not endeavor to make it IMPOSSIBLE for me to get a permit.

          In contrast, NJ (and several other states) strive to make it IMPOSSIBLE.

          Ask yourself these questions: Why was Donald Trump eligible for a CWP in New York City? Why would NYC have never considered issuing Melanija Knavs a CWP? Why would Washington DC issue a CWP to you or me? Why would DC never issue either a home or CWP permit to Melania Trump?

          Can you rationalize how it is that there is anything “right” about a system of government that arbitrarily permits/denies the right to the means of self-defense to a qualified adult? Is merely being a billionaire or a generous contributor to the Democratic party a necessary prerequisite?

          In these respects I see government being “. . . crap [that] is just wrong no matter what . . .” It’s wrong whether imposed upon Blacks because of their skin color in the 19’th century; it’s wrong when it’s imposed on everyone regardless of color in the 21’st century.

      2. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Mark

        I do think that government, as unwieldy as it is, has to be involved in both education and health care. Case in point, the douchebag who bought up the EpiPens and took them from $60 to $600. Purely a money making move with no benefit at all to families or society, a move made to feed the greed of one individual. That stuff needs to be illegal and only government can make it so. There are plenty of affordable medicines that do what people need and don’t break the bank but there’s nothing to keep greedy jerks from doing what that guy did, which was its own form of artificial pricing. It never has and never will cost anything near $600 to make an EpiPen. Pure greed and a lot of hurt to innocent people.

        same with guns. Lots of good people have them. Then you have the handful of craptastic individuals who get their hands on them. I don’t believe you can regulate everything. I do think that if people aren’t willing to regulate themselves, they end up getting regulated. Seems to me that we’re at a pretty new low in terms of societal self regulating, but that’s my inner prude coming out.

        Conception to 3 years is the first big ground for kids. But childhood and then adolescence continues until 25. That’s a long window of time for both positive and negative influences in a human’s life. And you will always have dependent people in any society. That’s just always there. In societies where families are strongly supported they tend to be taken in and cared for by family. In a fragmented society like ours families don’t or can’t do it, so the government ends up having to do it. But it’s often a series of incomplete solutions that inadvertently create more problems – like legalizing weed which then brings tons of homeless people into a state who want to smoke legally on their SSDI checks; or creating a safe injection program which then brings in heroin addicts from surrounding states and ends up upsetting the non using residents.

  4. avatar burley says:

    “On one hand, you’re told that you’re oppressed and that the country does not look after your interests. On the other, it’s said that if you decide to defend yourself, it will backfire.”

    In other words, one is told to embrace your victimhood so we can pass laws that restrict everyone’s liberty.

  5. avatar Bugs Nasty says:

    American Citizen, Black, Transgender, Liberal, Gun Owner who gets to publish criticism of Liberals in general in the New York Times.
    What’s not to like?

  6. avatar Matt in Floridy says:

    Nothing scares progressive whites more than pro gun /constitutional blacks.

    A perfect example is when Colion Noir went on Bill Maher’s show. Maher basically kissed Nior’s ass with a crooked smile for the entire segment.

    Well spoken, articulate black folks are a great asset to the 2nd amendment cause. Progressives literally bite their tongues while debating them.

    1. avatar Gladius et Scutum says:

      Oh man, that segment was hilarious. First, it was obvious Maher doesn’t know shit about guns. Second, it was obvious he was terrified of Noir.

  7. avatar DaveL says:

    W.E.B. Dubois understood one thing very well: that rights are not something that the powerful grant to you in recognition of your good character and general worthiness. They are something you claim and defend, the things you are willing to fight for. Keep fighting the good fight.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      There are no such thing as ‘natural’ or ‘god given’ rights. You have what you can take and hold.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Sounds like something my dad would say, “you’ve only got what you can hold in your hands, right now.”
        The older I get, the more I realize how right he was.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        JWM
        You are so correct.

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        The Lord helps those who help themselves.

  8. avatar DrDKW says:

    It’s a matter of degree.
    These days, ALL gun owners are being discriminated against – often treated with contempt, as ‘mere civilians’, by government and law-enforcement!

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Secretly, those that “show contempt for citizens” show even more contempt for subjects(those who have voluntarily given up their “teeth”).

  9. avatar WARFAB says:

    Maj Toure is doing some phenomenal work for gun rights with the Black Guns Matter movement. His being a minority gives him a bit more freedom to state things bluntly about the gun rights situation and he’s reaching people the NRA doesn’t.

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Of Course “Leftists Lack the Capacity to Discuss Gun Rights” as they are Anti America/Anti Constitution.

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’ve a few lefty acquaintances from my days in the city. They either equate guns with political adversaries, like guns themselves and assume nothing they support would ever apply to them or they just don’t care beyond slinging a slogan as a sort of “look at me, I’m a Democrat!” signal.

    It’s unfortunate that people fighting against basic rights are doing so from a position of aloof ignorance or indifference. At least be sincere and passionate when you’re out arguing for something so tyrannical and stupid.

  12. avatar John A says:

    The right to own a firearm is a responsibility that gun owners take seriously. You do not see any NRA members committing mass shootings. You cannot legislate away evil or mental illness but the left is trying to legislate away your basic right to defend yourself against EVIL and the Mentally ill who would harm you.

  13. avatar Michael says:

    Freedom lovers welcome here.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    Here’s someone that can take care of themselves . Just what progressives fear.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      But does this person still vote Democrat? If so, it doesn’t matter.

  15. avatar Stev says:

    I do love when non-traditional gun owners speak up. Their voice is beyond valuable.

  16. avatar MGD says:

    I’ve tried to educate liberal family and friends on firearms and have learned that they do not want to be educated. Their minds are shut.

  17. avatar Anon in Ct says:

    One thing that gets forgotten – A good way to bridge the racial, cultural and economic divides that still hamper America is through shared interests and activities, and even sometimes shared hardship. The military provides this in buckets.

    But other things, like a shared interest in firearms and marksmanship can also help.

    Given my job and neighborhood, I interact more with regular folks, white, black and Hispanic at my local range than I do at pretty much any other time. By interact, I mean as peers, not some guy or gal getting me a coffee.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    In 1975, the first white person I heard say in public everyone should have a gun, “Because I do” was Harvey Milk. The assassinated, first to be elected open homosexual San Francisco city council member. He was murdered in a gun free zone partly established by then city council woman Diana Feinstein.

    In 1979 The second white person I heard say blacks should get guns for self-defense was a white male homosexual member of the Log Cabin Republicans. I remember watching other homosexuals throwing glass bottles and rocks at them while they marched in a SF gay pride parade. For 20 years, as far as I knew, the only white group to support black gun owners was the Log Cabin Republicans. The next white group was the Jews For the Preservation of Forearm Ownership. Its founder Aaron Zelman, in 1991(2)(?), was the second white person, as far as I knew, to publicly say black people should have guns for self-defense.

    Since the Cincinnati revolt in 1977 the NRA has become a champion of gun civil rights for everyone. The NRA is superior to the NAACP when it comes to supporting gun civil rights for black people.

    I see no reason to trust Liberals (color doesn’t matter) and (sexual orientation doesn’t matter), when it comes to keeping/ defending my civil rights.

    Gun control is still very racist in 2018. And White Liberals are in the leadership to keep it that way.

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/14/nyc-gun-permit-applicants-claim-racial-bias-against-nypd-over-license-denials/

    https://crimeresearch.org/2017/07/concealed-handgun-permits-given-hispanics-blacks-women-los-angeles-county/

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/29/chicago-concealed-carry-gun-permit-law-disarms-poo/

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    I’m not sure liberals have the intellectual capacity to discuss if movies are good or not.

  20. avatar Geoff says:

    If you think you are a sex that you’re not, you are mentally ill.
    Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    As a Black man, here’s what I say to “woke” SJWs:

    1. The police are all violent, racist sociopaths.
    2. Only the police should have guns.

    Pick ONE.

    1. avatar dwb says:

      Agree 100%. I would only add that the left seems incessantly worried that Trump is a fascist dictator, yet seems hell bent on unilateral disarmament. If I were a progressive and hated Trump that much, first thing I’d do is push for repeal of NFA. I mean seriously. If god forbid it got to be Texas vs California, who wins that? Hint: Oklahoma has 18 guns per person, CA is home of the bullet button.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Naw! That ain’t right, no WAY OK has 18guns per person. And how would anybody know? Hell, I’m not sure *I* own 18 guns, and my bride and I don’t own 36 together, for sure.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Perhaps they would pick BOTH.

      I’m of German extraction. From my study of history there is no necessary conflict between these two viewpoints. If one experiences no cognitive dissonance when looking at a pair of propositions then they can be perfectly compatible.

      I’m perfectly comfortable with my own position. I will not get into your boxcar. Your move.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        Even Hitler had enough sense to tell the Germans that he was going after somebody ELSE. In the end, he destroyed Germany, but he didn’t telegraph it DECADES in advance. He DIDN’T say, “I’m going to start a war we can’t possibly win, destroy the country, get Germany divided in two, and have communists rule half of it.”

        The Democrats are as much as saying, “We’re going to make sure that only the people who murdered Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Michael Pleasance, and Kathryn Johnston have guns… oh, and by the way, you’re next.”

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          @Chris Morton: Inter-war Germany is a case which shows what a “liberal” and advanced civilization will do when it’s desperate enough and spooked enough. If it could happen there and then it could equally happen in a country like the USA. No assurance the initiative won’t be taken by any sector.

          The libertarian meme tells the point. When the boot of government is on your neck, does it matter whether it’s the left or right boot?

          At the moment, I don’t think America’s right is interested in micro-managing anyone else’s affairs. I do worry about America’s left being determined to do so.

          The lesson is offered in many countries around the world in many eras, under diverse circumstances. Allowing any sector or institution a monopoly on the use of lethal force is the most dangerous plan for organizing a society. We need only ask: Why do any suffering people not alter or abolish the governments that control their lives? North Korea, China, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. In each case, the answer is clear. These peoples lack the means to resist, and thereby, perhaps to prevail.

          We are far safer so long as we heed the council of our Founding Fathers. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Even Karl Marx so opined.

  22. avatar dwb says:

    “On the other, it’s said that if you decide to defend yourself, it will backfire.”

    Perhaps true, but conformity and submission = slavery.

    Break barriers, molds, stereotypes. If only to show that you can. Freedom means the freedom to rise above others dreadfully low expectations.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      They just want to get us conditioned to be slaves. They don’t care to whom initially. They figure that they can’t work that out to their own advantage later.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        Correction: “They figure that they can work that out to their own advantage later.”

  23. avatar Brocus says:

    Join https://socialistra.org/ if the centrists from the Demoratic Party aren’t your style.

  24. avatar Caesar Sancho says:

    Since when did this “check your privilege” bullshit become normal on this site? All these new writers are garbage, seriously this place went to shit when it sold and the new doofus troop took control.

  25. avatar Michael says:

    One thing that I think is becoming overused is the phrase, “self identifies as”, (I think it peaked with, “my firearm self identifies as a portable, wireless device.”) Funny once, yes…funny twice…not as much. Please don’t tell me, show me. That’ll be a lot more fun for everyone.-30-

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      It’s just shorthand for “who I think I am (that may or may not be who I actually am).” Takes too long to say/type all that out so “self identify” is shorter. In my job, it’s super important, because if people have an inaccurate self identification (example, they think they are dumb when actually they are really really bright) they aren’t going to go for the things in life they could really attain, so it helps to break apart the false one and install a real one that works better and is more accurate. But, that’s just my weird job, it may not mean much to others for sure.

  26. avatar Jon boat says:

    Why are we making someone who is mentally ill as a spokesman for us? Why can’t we write articles about happily married straight white Christian men?

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      “You didn’t get the memo? Those guys don’t matter one bit. No one will care. Those are the oppressors.
      Unless you are racial minority, preferably mentally screwed up and sexually confused, you have no voice. Best if you belong to as many downtrodden groups as possible, since your own individuality doesn’t count. The weirder and more opressed you are, the more valuable your opinion is.

      Get with the program and check your privileges!”

      Bleah! That progressive shit left bad taste in my mouth.

  27. avatar Captain Insano says:

    Lost me at transgender. The person referenced is mentally ill. That person might accidentally hold the same view as I do on 2A but I want nothing to do with them and don’t want them paraded around to promote gun rights.

  28. Is the progressive leadership going to label transgenderism as a mental illness again?

  29. avatar Geoff says:

    Transgendered are mentally ill and are therefore barred from gun ownership.
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20985-self-defense-in-the-uk-is-illegal

    1. avatar Geoff says:

      Wrong link. Forgot to clear my keyboard cache.
      https://photos.app.goo.gl/aQ4h8Pi57GB7a1sB9

Leave a Reply to Anon in Ct Cancel reply

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email