Gun Hero of the Day: Philip Smith of National African American Gun Association

Philip Smith of National African American Gun Association supports Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. “I think we should be the biggest advocates of having a gun of any ethnic group on the planet,” Smith opines, “because I think we’ve been attacked more than any other ethnic group on the planet.” Questionable, but point taken. For his efforts to reassert black Americans’ firearms freedom, for welcoming all gun owners regardless of their “religious, social or ethnic backgrounds,” the Obama voter (yup) gets TTAG’s Gun Hero of the Day Award.


  1. The first time TTAG ran a story about NAAGA, I signed up. Didn’t see anywhere to pay a fee or anything. I just got on the email list that rarely sends anyting out. I tried to use the forum but it didn’t seem to be working. I know this org is in its infancy but I don’t see it progressing as it should. Basically all it has done for me is make it able for me to brag to my black coworkers that I am a member of the National African American Gunowners Association. Without a T-shirt, the topic rarely comes up.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I have trouble seeing an obama supporter as a gun rights activist. It’s an image that just doesn’t mesh in my mind.

      1. avatar Muih says:

        People can be for everything a politician stands for except for one or two issues and be vehemently opposed on those, especially when those opposition issues werent major factors during elections (gun control simply wasnt a major camapign issue in 2008 or 2012 the way its shaping up to be in 2016), and, lets be honest, no US President (or even general election candidate) the last 40 or 50 years has been a truly 2A friendly president, be they D or R, remember, we got the Hughes amendment and Chinese import bans under R presidents, and CA’s gun control mania started under one of them.

        People get put into an awkward catch all the time with gun issues. “Do I vote for the pro 2A guy who I’m opposed to on literally every other issue…or vote for the anti 2A guy who I’m with on literally every other issue?”. Especially when the ostensibly pro 2A guy turns out to really not be much better than the open Anti in many cases.

        Its a sad state of affairs in politics, but nothing new.

        1. avatar alex says:

          There is much truth in your words. Just as the “pro labor” candidates are the ones that brought us NAFTA and the TPP

        2. avatar alex says:

          I think it would serve us well to remember that choosing which cheek to kiss doesn’t change the fact that you are still kissing an ass

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          There’s a huge difference between tinkering around the periphery (Open carry? Full auto guns? Important in principle, nearly irrelevant in practice.), and flat out civilian disarmament.

          You also have to remember the context of the times. Violent crime rates were much higher in decades past. The country was on the brink of social meltdown in the 1960s unlike anything in anyone’s living memory. Yes, I’m with you: I know the stats, the facts, the fallacies, and am aware of the actual impacts.

          I don’t even deny that some revered politicians back then got it wrong (brave stance of me to take, I know), got swept up in the emotions of the day and imprudently responded to demands to “Do something!” Hearing Black Panthers violent rhetoric and seeing them OC’ing at the state capitol building will do that.

          However, it’s one thing to allow a seemingly inconsequential last minute amendment to pass, or to get caught up in the times and to make some poor decisions with marginal impact, versus cynically exploiting every tragedy possible to ram the civilian disarmament you’ve always wanted down the throats (or up the….) of the American people.

          The Second Amendment isn’t just the Second Amendment. It silently sits there, preserving America’s freedom from its own government, and giving vitality and value to all the other amendments. Firearms freedom is not just about guns. It more succinctly and pervasively defines the nature of the relationship between government and governed than any other issue. It’s difficult to get guns wrong, while getting the rest right, and vice versa. That’s why a politician’s demonstrated commitment to gun rights is so important. It serves as a proxy for most everything else.

        4. avatar Shawn Carter says:

          Excellent post. I agree totally.

      2. avatar Chris T from Ya 1q22 says:

        I agree with you. I also don’t understand why homosexuals who are gun owners can vote for a person like Tom Ammiano. Cheer him by the thousands at gay pride parades.
        A homosexual white man who is proud of his support for the welfare system that breaks up black families, requiring the father to be removed from the home so “free” money can be given to a mother with no husband and the children with no father.
        The same Tom Ammiano who wrote the law saying you had to wait an additional ten days to get a gun.
        Perhaps they like interfering in the sexual relationships of straight black people more than they like getting a gun on the first day at a gun store. It does not seem to mesh.

  2. avatar Max says:

    I think there are a lot more blue dog democrats out there that don’t buy into the progressive agenda than most people realize. Obama was hesitant to even mention guns in his campaigning, and he and Romney had the exact same position on guns during their debates. My, how things change once you’re on your way out.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      The Blue Dogs are a dead breed, unfortunately. They caved to Obama’s “assurances” and helped pass Obamacare, then got voted out. Which is a shame because the Dems sorely need that moderating influence. But they made their doggie bed, so now they sleep outside.

  3. avatar the ruester says:

    “because I think we’ve been attacked more than any other ethnic group on the planet.”

    American blacks (especially men) are beaten, shot, stabbed and robbed at a horrific rate. Just watch “world star” and you’ll see thousands of unprovoked assaults, robberies, shootings, etc. It makes sense for a victim group to arm itself. The good citizens of these neighborhoods understand they are victims of organized crime, not police brutality. They could be our natural allies.

    1. avatar Shawn Carter says:

      I just took a black lives member to the woodshed about this very thing.

  4. avatar Anonymous says:

    Nice! I like it.

  5. Obviously “more guns” make americans safe despite scientific studies that prove the opposite.

    I’m glad I live in a safe, free and prosperous country where a gun is not easy to get and require that you need to have a psychological and criminal background and a good reason to possess instead of some asinine beliefs like the rest of these windmill crusaders on this website who believe that forcing people to believe that somehow.

    We’ve had no mass killings ever, While america can enjoy it’s 1 mass killing per day because somehow saving lives is considered “cruel” and “oppressive””.

    1. avatar Clay-in-UT says:

      A gunman armed with four handguns killed 16 kindergartners, one adult and himself in the Dumblane school massacre in 1996. Before that, a man armed with two rifles and a handgun killed 16 people in Hungerford, England, in 1987, before killing himself.

    2. avatar 505markf says:

      Yeah, I get that. Australia is certainly a safer place. But you see, Kirk, America wasn’t designed to be safe. It was designed to be free. It’s not something you have ever really experienced down under, though you lie to yourself and say that you do. Don’t worry about it, Kirk. We agree on one thing: we are both glad you live in Brisbane.

      Have a nice day.

      1. avatar TravisP says:

        Mic dropped

      2. People like you have completely missed the point of course. Since there isn’t such an availability of guns legal or otherwise here, there is not as big a black market as you would wish to justify your argument. Also, it might be convenient to differentiate between so called legal and illegal guns, but a gun death is a gun death.

        You know what, you can have your guns. You are welcome to them. Go ahead defend yourself and your family, live in a climate of fear. Fight for your constinutional rights. Live in the land of the free, home of the brave.

        Like most Australians, I can sleep quite safely at night without the need for a deadly weapon under my bed. Ahhhhh…the good life.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Like most Australians, I can sleep quite safely at night without the need for a deadly weapon under my bed.

          Or anybody else in it.

        2. avatar Rooster says:

          I wonder how good the life really is. The fact that you went out of your way to come here and belittle us shows we seem to be living in your head, rent free.

        3. avatar 505markf says:

          Oh, Kirk. We people who choose to defend ourselves don’t live in fear. BECAUSE we are prepared to defend ourselves. It is not something serfs will ever understand. Go back to sleep little man, telling yourself you sleep well because Oz is such a safe place.

          But is isn’t safe. Not by a damn sight. No place is. Now is no different from any other time in history. Civilization is a bubble in a landscape of chaos and terror and violence. You sleep well, Kirk, because SOMEONE ELSE is out there keeping your bubble from bursting. SOMEONE ELSE is taking it on themselves to keep you and other Australians safe. SOMEONE ELSE is putting themselves on the line between chaos and your gentle night’s sleep.

          Sleep well, Kirk.

        4. avatar Muih says:

          Australia absolutely has had mass shootings, as mentioned above. A two second google search would have cleared that up.

          Meanwhile, the US has always had a greater cultural acceptance of risk for greater freedom of action. Its why you can *say* things in the US that would get you thrown in jail in Australia or the UK or elsewhere, or own a firearm without having to justify yourself to anyone, and many other such things.

          You’re not going to convince anyone on a site like this that you’re right, particularly by insulting people about something theyre enthusiastic about.

        5. avatar pod says:

          This sums up Kirk to the T.

          Kirk, we don’t nose about in Australia’s affairs, we expect you to extend us the same courtesy.

        6. avatar Cal S. says:

          While “Gun Violence” is a nice term because you can blame any murder perpetrated with the use of a firearm on the gun. What about where that isn’t the case, though? Why is the violent crime rates in other countries much higher? The basics are these: murders in the US have been falling steadily since 1993 to 20-year lows. Firearms accidents have fallen to 50-year lows. During this same time period, firearms ownership has climbed almost three-fold. This is according to the American FBI/CDC statistics, not some politically-motivated poll from either side of the issue. Therefore, more guns =/= more crime or “Gun Deaths”. So yeah.

          Oh, and the EU has had more and deadlier mass shootings than the US in a direct 1-to-1 comparison despite stringent gun laws. The only difference? There have been a dozen or so mass shootings that have been prevented or cut short in the US by private citizens carrying guns that were able to react to protect themselves and others before police arrived. The most ‘successful’ mass shootings in the US have occurred in gun-free zones where such citizens were lawfully disarmed. The sources for what I have said are plentiful and easily found with some basic search engine skills.

          Perhaps you are unaware of your own nation’s sketchy relationship with firearms? Your nation has one of the most outstandingly good underground firearms manufacturing businesses in the world. Some of the SMGs manufactured in Australian garages outclass ‘budget’ firearms made legally here in the US. It’s a shame, because if they moved here and got a license, then they’d miss out on a LOT of jail time. These guns make up 12-15% of the firearms seized by your nation’s police. Oh, and check this out, even your nation’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges there was not an appreciable impact on crime after the gun ban:

        7. avatar JJ says:

          Kirk you are wrong on so many counts. Since the early 1990’s including its draconian gun control, total murder in Australia dropped 31%. The international developed democracy drop in murder in that period was 40%, and the US drop in murder in that period was 65%.

          Relative to international and US trends, Australia was one of the few countries that INCREASED murder rate rankings.

          I also lived in Australia for years and the lower starting murder rate is due to massively lower constitutional rights in Australia affecting criminal defense. for example stop and frisk, which has lowered violent crime rates in US jurisdictions by 80% but was declared unconistutional in the US, is fully legal in Australia. Also not only are warrant thresholds lower in Australia, but items found during searches not on warrant are usable in prosecution. Double jeopardy is legal in Australia. I can name a dozen other lower rights.

          Also studies across the US show 90% of our US murder victims are criminals. the science shows for those of us who are not criminals, we are at lower risk of murder in the US than Australia.

          Lastly the science shows density affects murder rates with the massive majority of murder in inner cities.. On a density controlled basis both Australia and Canada have higher homicide rates than the USA.

          Again you celebrate a 31% drop in murder (and a zero drop in suicide) which you attribute to more gun control. The US saw a 65% drop in murder as concealed carry permits increased 20 fold

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      “We’ve had no mass killings ever…” From Kirk – Brisbane, Australia.

      TTAG’s resident troll level has really gone down hill these last few years – only the dregs.

      Kirk, you might want to stop, go gather yourself, and try again on that one, mate.


        We’re publishing it in a separate post.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Who is this “we’re”, Kirk?

          Do you hear voices, Kirk? Do they compel you to post on here?

          Do they tell you to wear funny hats, Kirk, and to cover yourself in Vicks VapoRub? When was the last time you saw the doctor, Kirk?

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I suspect that was actually RF, announcing that he’ll use KirkfromBrissy’s comment as a post.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I suspect that was actually RF, announcing that he’ll use KirkfromBrissy’s comment as a post.”

          I can’t wait to see that!!!

        4. avatar soccerdad says:

          It’s up. hit the home button. Great comments

        5. avatar PavePusher says:

          Kirk, can you cite your stats for us?

        6. avatar Excedrine says:

          As you may know, many Australians (and people from all around the world in general) think that your country (among others) is a role model that the U.S. should follow. However, two very important studies of your 1996 National Firearms Agreement completely disagree with this statement.

          A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.

          Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from your University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

          Dr. McPhedran even testified to this fact before a recent Australian Senate Inquiry, which had looked into – among other things – banning semi-automatic handguns. Needless to say , gun control advocates were rightly and completely humiliated.

          Before that same Senate Inquiry, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Julian Slater had freely admitted that not only do they have no clue what exactly what kinds of contraband were getting through, but they only know about what they somehow by some miracle manage to intercept. As I’m sure you may be well aware, and even if you’re not you will be now, Australia’s porous borders and low population density – coupled with deeply corrupt postal and customs services – make it a veritable smuggler’s paradise.

          More analyses of U.S. domestic and Australian gun control laws have been done besides the brilliant work of Dr. McPhedran, and Wang-Sheng and Saudri, on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Their findings match those of the former researchers almost exactly.



          A Deputy Director from the Australian Institute of Criminology also testified before the Senate Inquiry, and explicitly stated that only 5 of the 48,000+ handguns in the Australian state of Victoria had been stolen. To complicate matters further, the AFP even admitted they had not even bothered to examine the AIC’s report on gun thefts at all.

          After the Port Arthur shooting, there were also the Quakers Hill and Childer’s Palace arson attacks, the Black Saturday Bushfires – which were deliberately lit in case you needed a reminder – the Cairns Stabbings, the Lockhart Shooting, and the Monash University Shooting. The 1996 NFA didn’t stop the massacres from happening, but only changed the methods in which they are carried out. Especially not when many thousands of guns handed over to the government for destruction in 1996 were then illegally resold to criminals – many of which have still never been recovered, and have very likely been used in crimes since. Some were indeed recovered though, in the private collections of police officers.

          Guns are taken from Melbourne’s own ‘Red Zone’ every two days – all from “prohibited” persons – and by the thousands every single year — and that’s just one metropolitan area in one city.

          Even police and military armories are broken into with mind-boggling regularity, to the tune of dozens of times – and that’s just in the state of Victoria and the port of Sydney.

          Isn’t it any wonder that only after the states of Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were excluded from all crime statistics reports by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology from 2010 onwards there begins an appreciable drop in Australia’s violent crime rates across the board?

          Indeed, wonders never cease. Especially when criminals receive hundreds of pistols at a time through the mail and several times every year, made especially easy by Australia’s institutionalized corruption of its Customs services – not to mention that of individual officials, as well.

          Even if criminals couldn’t receive their guns through the Sunday Post, they can just as easily make them or have them made-to-order. These aren’t those shoddy rusticles of zip-guns you’d expect to find in a jail cell, either, but finely machined MAC-11 sub-machine guns – complete with 32-round magazines and silencers.

          In conclusion, no, America would not benefit from Australia’s gun control laws. (Even Australia didn’t seem to benefit from them.) This is for a wide variety of reasons. Given the level of sophistication of the criminal enterprises that were created by Prohibition in the U.S., and now during the morbidly hilarious failure of the “War on (Some) Drugs” around the world, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about a prohibition on guns – which is what you have by-and-large in Australia – is that equally large and sophisticated criminal enterprises will arise to fulfill the demand for guns. This can, as quite thoroughly demonstrated above if I do say so myself, can and will be accomplished in a number of ways: clandestine domestic manufacture, surreptitious importation from abroad, and widespread theft.

          Australia is plagued by the first and the second. America is plagued by the second and third.

          To give you an example of the futility of banning an item to which is attached very high demand, some 1.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized by the U.S. DEA in 2010 – and that’s only a very small percentage of what is believed to have made it across the border. It is reasonable to assume that the shear amount of arms, ammunition, and accoutrement that can occupy the same space as 800 tons of plant matter is quite sufficient to arm a significant portion of the U.S. criminal element.

          These dreadful shortcomings demonstrate a basic and willful failure of Prohibitionists to understand or even acknowledge the market forces governing anything for which there is significant demand. It is the primary reason why central economic planning has only proved an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. More basically, they fail to realize or consciously ignore the fact that when people want something, someone will get it for them. The harsher the ban, the higher the profit motive. The higher the profit motive, the more risks criminals will be willing to take to satisfy their market. There are deeper reasons for this failure than simply flat-out flunking ECON 101. Those who trade in prohibited goods are, by definition, criminals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise without the benefits of redress the courts or any other avenue of dispute resolution or of police protection. When an enterprise can’t: take out a loan, open a bank account, establish credit, file a lawsuit, or have police respond to an alarm, it becomes necessarily more violent to protect its financial and territorial interests and to affect resolutions over contractual disputes. Essentially, prohibition of highly desirable goods can only function to increase overall violence and disregard for the law as a basic factor of prohibition. One must accept this as a basic premise and then try to reconcile the increased violence and criminality coupled with the inevitable encroachment on individual liberty with any perceived utility of the prohibition.

          As the world slowly comes to the realization that prohibition of drugs, with the focus now being primarily on marijuana and cannabis, has very little if any utility in the face of extremely high demand we begin to move away from banning it.

          Considering that those who smuggle, steal, and manufacture weapons and their customers will obviously still be armed, the level of violence in the wake of an Australian-style prohibition would be unprecedented. Once one factors in the unique culture surrounding guns and civil rights in the U.S., the increasingly ubiquitous support for the Second Amendment and the right it protects, and American’s historical resistance to tyranny, the violence may very well escalate into that of armed insurrection.

          Mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day, and police departments are already realizing the logistical absurdity of such an endeavor in actually enforcing registration or, Heaven forbid, a mass confiscation. In fact, many law enforcement officials have already announced their intentions to not enforce such laws at all.

          Also given that firearms are very durable items, with many examples lasting 500 years or more with proper care and maintenance, and that upwards of 363 million (as of 2013) are already thought to be present in the hands of up to 124 million Americans, it’s highly unlikely that any prohibition would succeed at all as confiscation must immediately follow – as it did in Australia – to realize any utility at all.


          All this having been said, advocacy for prohibition of firearms can only be seen as either ill informed (as in being simply unaware of the consequences) or malicious (aware of the inevitable and invariable failure of the prohibition and the increased criminality and violence and potential to destabilize society and government and possibly to result in violent revolution). It’s either one or the other. There is NO third option.

          Pick one.

    4. avatar H says:

      In the US mass killing means 4 or more. So family murder suicides count. Read your own stats. Your homicide by guns went down. Did homicides go down?

      But since you’re gloating. This country fought a war twice with a country that exiled it’s criminals to create your lovely paradise. The US isn’t even perfect but we are trying. Oh by the way, what have you been doing to the indigenous people there?

      Day you’re perfect point a finger. We are trying our asses off to balance rights with personal responsibility. We are trying to own our own bad. We get sucked into believing that little quick fixes work. We can be really ignorant. This month General Electric said its moving it’s refrigeration assembly to Mexico. The CEO made 10 million last year and 20 the year before. May sound like kindergarten but wouldn’t it be better for the whole US if those jobs stayed here? Perhaps Mr.Ceo could take a little less cash so families could eat? His choice his rights. Then some folks will stir up these unemployed people by telling them that Mexicans took their jobs. That’s where we get stupid. Who moved the division? Who signed the papers. Who makes bonuses on the profits? Yep not the Mexican worker. A well off American CEO.

    5. avatar Jason says:

      You are subjects, we are free. You had lower homicide rates than the United States when you were lacking those “sensible” firearms laws and *gasp* your rates are still lower even though you always overlook how you had a huge jump in violent crime after you banned firearms.

      And then there’s that annoying fact about New Zealand not passing your asinine laws and still enjoying a faster drop in the homicide rate than big brother Aussie land did.

      If you like being a slave, that’s fine. We don’t like it and if you don’t like that then don’t visit here.

    6. avatar Ben says:

      Mr “KirkFromBrisbane” first I’m going to leave this right here for you:

      Just in case you don’t look at the link, yes its a list of mass killings in your safe little island haven.

      Second: You do realize that the USA has over *15 times* the population of your country right? We have cities with populations the size of your *entire* country (NYC with its surrounding burbs/cities amounts to 20-23 million people depending on how you define the area). Of course we are going to have more news worthy terrible events.

      Third: You guys are not really very free. You can’t even buy a uncensored violent video game. Your government babysits even your gaming hobbies. I’d prefer my government treat me like an adult and let me decide on my own about my hobbies and my own personal safety. Even we are not there yet in my opinion (just look at the USA’s broken drug laws) but we are going in the right direction.

      Four: Disarmament just doesn’t work. If a bad guy wants a weapon to do bad things he will get one. Just look at Paris France. Its not exactly easy to get fully automatic AK47s and hand grenades in France yet they did. And no one at any of the scenes had the ability to do anything to stop it. The best anyone could do was record the event with their phone while people died around them. (just google “gun owner stops mass shooting”)

      Five: Gun regulation doesn’t “save lives”. It might reduce gun crimes (it usually doesn’t) but that’s a silly moronic term used to twist the narrative. What’s important is “crimes” not “gun crimes”. Do you really care which device killed you or your loved one or are you just concerned that you/they were killed? A quick look at the UK and you can see that overall crime went *up* while “gun crime” went down (some). I personally prefer not to be killed at all, regardless which device is used to kill me.

      Crime in the USA has been on a steady decline for years while gun ownership has reached record highs and more people are (legally) carrying around firearms on them then any other time in US history, yet crime is at historic lows. How is it exactly that guns are the *problem* again?

      1. avatar Sian says:

        *mic drop*

    7. avatar Wrex says:

      So, how many homicides in-totem, comparatively (Firearm involved and otherwise, combined)? Oh, and quantify that with populous density.

      Yeah,”Mate”, that’s what I thought. STFU.

    8. avatar JJ says:

      “We [Australia] have had no mass killings.

      Actually on a per capita basis Australia has had the same number of mass killings in the past three years as the US. I found a dozen googling in two minutes. what is this:

  6. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Clearly, based solely on their pro-gun and personal responsiblity rhetoric, these people must not be black.

    Unlike the white guy who started #BLM (Black Lives Matter) – now that pastey mofo is definitely black.

    1. 90% of the black people I know, and I know a lot of them, own guns, drive powerful automobiles, attend church regularly and say blessing before every meal, embrace capitalism, support traditional marriage and have an entrepreneurial spirit. Yet 90% of them vote Democrat exclusively.
      I believe this is because even though they believe in personal freedom, they feel that they are part of a union of color. A group that did not immigrate by choice. They operate outside the constraints of government regulation therefore their voting history doesn’t affect them personally, until the entire community fails.
      For example, it’s tax season again and you should hear the stories of how people making the same salary as mine get almost every penny back by using preparers with questionable integrity. They feel untouchable because they will simply use the race card.
      They vote for policies that hurt the compliant citizen knowing they will game the system. I guess they square this with the lord given the history of blacks in America.
      Righteous indignation so to speak.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        If I had dollar for every time I’ve heard someone (regardless of race, gender, or creed) who votes across the board D’s, but spouts conservative values, I’d be on the Bern’s “pay your fair share” 1% er sh*t list.

        1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

          Yep guys. I just yelled at a certain someone on yesterdays Chicago related post. MASSIVE black disconnect. Especially in Chicagoland…”how dare talk raciss about Obama-he ain’t after my guns!”…

      2. avatar Jason says:

        Will those folks still own guns and drive powerful automobiles after progressive ideology eventually bans both? Will they still say blessings at each meal when progressive agenda bans christianity because it hurts other people’s feelings?

      3. avatar H says:

        Check and see if lower and lower middle class whites vote for politicians who support businesses that move their very jobs off shore.

        1. Okay, I’ll get right on that.

          I’m back. No, they said they vote for Conservatives that want to lower the corporate tax rate to keep businesses local. They also blamed the unions for inflating the market price for labor and using dues to campaign for Democrats who want to tax corporations and working folks to pay for bums.
          That’s so racist, isn’t it?

  7. avatar 505markf says:

    I had the following conversation with a social justice warrior who was protesting something – I still don’t know what – outside of a local Kroger’s a month ago. They were cracking on about oppressed people. I get that some populations are oppressed. It is hard to deny reality, though my approach to it no doubt varies from theirs.

    SJW: “… evidence of systemic oppression of black people in this country is the horrible toll of gun violence!”

    Me: “I agree. I think all legally qualified blacks ought to own guns to protect themselves from violence and tyranny.”

    SJW: (sizing me up and down – I am a VERY pale man – and sneers) “Right… we know what you’d do if you saw a black man with a gun! You’d shoot him down in cold blood! (because pale = racism I guess in their view?)

    Me: “Nope. I’d call out, ‘Dude! Nice heater. What caliber you carrying?'”

    SJW: (face red, sputtering, nothing… he turned away and kept shouting at people heading into the grocery store)

    I just don’t get it. My 21 year old son is a borderline social just warrior type. He was going on about oppression last summer and how we had to do something. I told him the best thing is to get out of their way and let them tool up. Arming oneself is a great first step in becoming un-oppressed. He paused, thought, and said, “Ok, you have me there.” Which is why he’s a borderline SJW, perhaps… I would have been the same at his age and I think the kiddo will outgrow it. I hope so, otherwise trips home for visits will get pretty stale.

    I do not know what gives me more intellectual and emotional joy than a Black or Jew deciding to tool up legally. God knows they’ve got got reason to. And the more the merrier I think. I don’t get the whole Obama voter thing, but defense against tyranny is a very big tent. We’ve got room for some outliers.

    But damned if it doesn’t continue to gnaw at me… Whey the hell were they protesting in front of a Krogers?

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Anytime you are befuddled by listening to the blatherings of some Feminist or SJW – remember one thing.

      It’s a totalitarian political ideology masked as “social and civil rights” mantra, full stop. It’ll all start to come together after that.

      The “man” (usual white males – the last people on Earth you are allowed to openly generalize, stereotype, and hate) is oppressing someone, somewhere, and we need the gov’t and more policy to save them.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      My 21 year old son is a borderline social just warrior type.

      “If you’re not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at 35, you have no brain.”

      — Variously Attributed

      1. avatar 505markf says:

        Yeah, that would have been me. I used to make my father crazy. It helps me to remember that, some days.

  8. avatar Chris Morton says:

    The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a “safe working environment”.

    Black people supporting invidiously racist gun controls is the equivalent of Jews demanding laws mandating the wearing by Jews of yellow stars.

    1. avatar Barry Harmon says:

      The history of gun control in the US is the history of DEMOCRATS working to bar BLACKS from owning guns. Period, end of story. Somehow that little fact has fallen out of favor over the years.

  9. avatar Jaffas says:


    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Please quit yelling at me.

    2. avatar Jason says:

      What the hell with the caps lock? Did you just discover the Internet yesterday?

  10. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    MEH…another black man voting for satan. An award huh? How’s he feel about the leftwing demorat efforts to murder brown babies? Margaret Sanger anyone? Or dumbocrat Jim Crow… what a massive disconnect. It makes me love my beautiful brown wife even more than usual. And didja’ catch one of the names bandied about for Bury Soetoro to nominate for the supremes? Kamala Harris…

  11. avatar OCD says:

    That channel is actively deleting any comment that has NRA in it. At least they did it to me. I did not say anything bad either. I was very supportive of them as well.

  12. avatar rt66paul says:

    You also have to realize that every time someone is injured by a firearm in the US, it is likely to make national(if not international) news. We have a hell of a lot of people here in the US, and when you look at the ptobabilities of being shot as an innocent victim, you will see that it is very improbable.
    You might point to the children that get hit with gunfire in Chicago or other ‘hoods, but if you look at it, you will usually find that the parents of that child were gang members and the original target. Occasionally we find that it was a random child in the neighborhood, but then again, people know what is going on in thier neighborhoods and maybe should be looking for another place to live, I know I would and did.

Write a Comment

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

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