Times, and gun ownership, are a-changing. Much to the chagrin of those who oppose lawful gun ownership, it is becoming increasingly difficult to paint the stereotype of today’s gun owner as pale, male and stale.
The firearm industry has always said it: the Second Amendment is colorblind. The right of law-abiding Americans to buy and own firearms is for everyone. For many in the media, that notion is unthinkable. If they were paying attention instead of projecting an antigun agenda, it wouldn’t be surprising.
Out of the Woods, Into the Gun Store
National media has a history of broad-stroking the American gun owner as an “old, white guy.” Scientific American, asked, “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” President Barack Obama caricatured rustbelt and Midwest voters for “clinging to their guns.” David Chipman, former Giffords gun control front man and President Joe Biden’s failed nominee to become Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), likened the country’s millions of new gun owners to “Tiger King” and mocked them as zombie apocalypse preppers who “hide their guns behind the cans of tuna and beef jerky.” The labels are tired. More importantly, they’re flat wrong.
An NPR reporter in New Hampshire visited a group of LGBTQ Americans “inspired” to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The reporter, Todd Bookman, visited the group Rainbow Reload that sees firearms as important to their members’ safety and self-defense. That is, after all, the foundation of the Second Amendment in the first place.
The group’s organizer said, “If the world is dangerous, then you have to be dangerous back. And that very much has pushed me into where I am now.”
Bookman described how the gun club offers experts and those interested in gun ownership an opportunity to practice handling and shooting firearms in a supportive environment. The group practiced target shooting with pistols, shotguns and even AR-15s, the Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) so often maligned as “assault weapons” by gun control groups and politicians. Recent events, including a rise in threats of violence, defund the police policies and soft-on-crime prosecutors, have led these law-abiding Americans from being antigun to “gun curious” to gun owners themselves.
Another member of the LGBTQ community stated simply, “We have the ability to protect ourselves. We’re fools for not doing it.”
Diversity in Lawful Gun Owners is Nothing New
The gun-owning community has always been welcoming. Buying a firearm comes with inherent responsibilities and providing education, training opportunities and advice to new gun owners – no matter what the reasons are behind the purchase – are obligations existing gun owners take seriously.
Chris Cheng is a competitive shooter who won History Channel’s Top Shot championship. He’s also a member of two minority groups that have been victimized – he’s Asian American and a member of the LGBTQ community. Speaking at a U.S. Senate hearing in 2021, Cheng told senators why he opposed further restrictions on gun rights and why he encourages his fellow community members to become gun owners.
“We don’t have to look any farther back than the 1992 Los Angeles riots and Koreatown,” Cheng said. “They called the LAPD for help and the LAPD was under-resourced… So what did they do? Korean-Americans utilized their Second Amendment rights and took their own personal firearms and protected themselves.”
Fast forward to only a few months ago to when the underfunded Los Angeles County Police Department told the victims of crimes to “comply and cooperate” with the criminal perpetrators.
“If I can’t have law enforcement there, then it is a rational conclusion that individual citizens like myself would opt to utilize my Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm and use that firearm in lawful and legal self-defense,” Cheng said.
During the COVID pandemic, NSSF industry data showed Americans from all walks of life were prolific lawful purchasers of firearms. In 2020, African-Americans bought firearms by 58 percent greater rate than 2019. Hispanic-American purchases rose by 49 percent and Asian-American purchases rose by 42 percent. Women accounted for roughly 40 percent and African-American women were especially active gun buyers.
The NPR report cited data showing roughly 21 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual people live in a house with a firearm, compared to 36 percent of heterosexual adults. Those numbers, including a Pew study on partisan gun ownership, are likely on the low end, as many gun owners are reluctant to speak openly about firearm ownership. Still, the data reaffirms the lawful gun-owning community has never been more diverse.
Proof In The Polling
Lara Smith, spokeswoman for the national group Liberal Gun Club, spoke at SHOT Show® 2023 and said, “Unicorns do exist, and liberals can be gun owners, too.”
Many minority groups, including African-Americans and members in the LGBTQ community, tend to vote Democrat by large margins. The Second Amendment, however, isn’t a partisan right. It’s a right of all Americans and these nontraditional gun-owning groups are embracing their right to buy and use firearms in increasing numbers and are building bridges that are reflected in public polling.
Opposition to national bans on commonly-owned firearms, specifically the MSR, has never been higher with a majority of Americans opposed. Numerous polls show swings away from more gun control and to policies that affirm gun rights, but also, separately, hold criminals accountable for their crimes.
For all the talk today about Americans being divided, one thing seems clear. Americans from all backgrounds and demographics agree that gun ownership is a common right that transcends politics and demographics.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
It’s difficult to tell who your enemy is when they all look like you.
stop being such an OFWG
Can’t help it. It’s who I am. 🙂
“…pale, male and stale…”
Hmm. I’m Caucasian, physically fit, and on the conservative end of the spectrum. I suppose that makes me White, Tight, and Right.
Gun control now!
Gun control tomorrow!
And gun control forever!
The 21st century update. video 1 min long
There are old people. There are fat people. There,aren’t old fat people.
There,aren’t old fat people.
Sure there are…
I’m old and fat. In my family that’s the norm. 80-102 years is the norm for both sides of the family.
My maternal grandmother was 98, worked hard her whole life, born on a farm married a farmer died on the farm yet by todays standards she would have been considered fat, the kind of grandmother who thought there was something wrong with her cooking if you didn’t at least come back for seconds constantly baking cakes, pies, bread, biscuits, up at 4:30 every morning and non-stop til 10 at night…
My last comment is “awaiting moderation” simply because I used the exact same word as the three people before me,
the word F-A-T. Why did mine get “moderated” and the other three people’s comments did not?
There might be another innocuous word or phrase in there. They aren’t always obvious.
The Chicoms and their flu serious reduced the #. FJB was bought/paid for.
Chicoms and their flu serious reduced the #
Maybe so but they didn’t get me or any of my OFWG neighbors OR any of my family, in fact I don’t know anyone personally who knew anyone that actually died as a direct result of the WuFlu… 1.128 million total US deaths out of 325,000,000 is really negligible, fentanyl will catch up to that in a couple of years…
Madd. My sister had a stroke and died. Her official cause of death was covid. A year and a half ago. She didn’t even have the sniffles. It was a stroke.
yeah, there was a biker in Orlando, hit by a car and killed, officially “death by covid” happened WAY to often…
Remember what Elon Musk said: “The Real President is whoever controls the Teleprompter.” Biden is nothing more than a Manchurian Candidate in an empty suit. His Handlers are making all the decisions. He is the tradeoff made by the Liberal Progressive Democrat leadership. For allowing an old man with Dementia to live out his lifelong dream of being President,
Spoken like a young guy!
The truth is, the older you get, the fatter you get, at least in America.
My grandma lived to 101.5 (yes, that’s her age, not a radio station), and she was fat.
I’m only 60, but every year I weigh more, even though every year, I eat less and less!
By the time I’m 70, I expect I’ll be eating nothing, drinking only water, and I’ll still be fatter than ever. If I could figure out why Americans gain weight as we get older, and how to stop it or reverse it, I’d be a billionaire.
Found the naughty word: d-r-i-n-k-i-n-g.
I wonder if old-timey fat was healthier than modern fat? The diet is different now. The proliferation of processed food, GMO wheat, HFCS, and seed oil consumption are causing major health problems. Why are there so many type 2 diabetics and issues with gluten sensitivity now? It isn’t just about activity level. Sure being active and working out helps. If you want to transform your body, then you have to change your diet. Like the old saying goes, abs are made in the kitchen, not the gym. You can do sit-ups until the cows come home. No one will see your abs until your diet is on point. Want to lose weight? Obviously stop consuming sugar and fried foods, but also stop consuming wheat and soy products. Cut that out, and you’ll drop weight like crazy.
An old diet in a Doctor’s manual from the 1950’s called for steak and cheese three times a day and absolutely nothing else (other than water).
MADDMAXX March 2, 2023 At 18:53
Your comment is awaiting moderation
steak and cheese three times a day
The OLD no carbs KETO (Atkins) diet plan…
I have absolutely NO fucking clue why THAT is being “moderated”… Somebody needs to step up and EXPLAIN…
Won’t comment on soy, but I doubt that “wheat” is the problem. We certainly have a problem with “types of fat” but that’s more of a heart/vascular-health issue than a weight-gain problem.
Many countries that are perfectly well fed have a lot of bread in their diet and do not have our obesity problem, so it’s not “wheat”.
In this realm I suspect that we have two major problems, HFCS in fuckin’ everything and portion sizes.
Then there’s exercise and the fact that there’s a prevailing attitude of “disability” in the US. Everyone’s on drugs for something, usually something they could fix. Instead, we treat symptoms rather than problems and if you run that forward far enough you end up with people who pass a certain point from which there is no return as you age.
-This post not brought to you by Pfizer.
It’s actually a major problem. Of course it isn’t discussed because there’s mucho money at stake. Genetically modifying wheat in the 70s for a higher yield coincided with the rise in obesity and autoimmune symptoms. I know, correlation causation, blah blah. Are we not supposed to notice what happens when people cut modern GMO wheat out of their diets? Obviously portion control helps with everything. You’re also less likely to die if you only take a little fentanyl.
“Instead, we treat symptoms”
Too many health problems can be fixed with a lifestyle change, including diet. It’s easier and more profitable to have a daily pill to prescribe. If that causes problems, there’s another pill for that. A classic example of treating the symptom would be anti-depressants. They make a fortune from selling those. The sales pitch was to fix your chemical imbalance – a lie.
“Genetically modifying wheat in the 70s for a higher yield coincided with the rise in obesity and autoimmune symptoms.”
Except that, as I pointed out, we modified the plant on a world-wide market which made it more competitive. This was adopted world-wide to keep up with the advantages the new wheat provided.
Most of the world is eating this stuff but doesn’t have the same problems. Ergo, it’s unlikely to be the wheat itself.
Further, obesity rates in the US have climbed since 1960, starting before the wheat you discuss even existed. They also grew at a relatively predictable rate from that time until the mid-2000’s when the rate-of-increase took off like a rocket. Changing the type of wheat we produce in the 1970’s is very unlikely to have no effect for 35 years and then suddenly have an effect unless it’s synergistic with something else.
Again, this temporal association only works if you ignore lots of other factors at play over a timeline of ~50 years. And, as I pointed out the other day, you can do all sorts of fun things with your line of best fit when you get to choose the starting point.
This is a place where a retrospective study (or set of them) does little good because we’ve changed literally hundreds of variables during the time frame under discussion often without informing people. This makes it impossible for us to separate variables since the people under study can’t honestly tell us what cohort they fall into.
From the use of new plastics to an explosion in different types of drugs given to children with limited study to changes in population involving sub-populations who have known metabolic differences we’ve changed a stupid amount of stuff. I don’t believe we can pick one thing and say “That’s the thing that did it!” given the sum-total of variables we should rationally consider.
I mean, for example; The real explosion in childhood obesity, which is a major driver of the overall stats on this, happens when they removed recess and various forms of “dangerous play” from children.
Obviously there are other factors. It’s only a piece of the puzzle. I know you understand this given your history with diabetes, but most people don’t understand that wheat and wheat flour basically top the glycemic index. They aren’t that far from glucose. The US gov put out their food pyramid in 1972. It told us to load up on wheat. It’s like the gov was either working for Big Farming or the insulin manufacturers. *For the record, the wheat alteration was a net positive so people don’t starve to death, obviously. I’m just discussing over eating, processed foods, etc.
Around 1980, the average caloric intake began increasing dramatically. I think a big part of this was due to processed food and fast food. French fries are about the worst thing someone can consume. The uptick in obesity was noticeable, so people looked around and declared the enemy to be calories. They noticed that high fat foods were full of calories. Thus began the low fat diet trend. Instead of eating more fat, people consumed more wheat. Fat fills you up. Wheat makes you more hungry. It’s even addictive. Check the label on some low fat peanut butter. They replace the fat with sugar so it doesn’t taste horrible, and you keep buying it. The regular, high fat peanut butter is actually better for you! The low fat diet trend ended up making the problem even worse.
The geniuses in the government, led by Michelle Obama, decided to change cafeteria food in schools. What did they do? They took the very unscientific approach of making everything as low fat as possible! What did this accomplish? It made the barely tolerable cafeteria food nasty. If it made anyone lose weight, it was because kids stopped eating it. I remember because certain days I didn’t have to pack lunches for my kids. After that, they pretty much stopped eating the school food. I felt sorry for the kids that depended on school food for the bulk of their meals.
Here’s a link to an interesting article stating that the obesity epidemic can’t be completely explained with a reduction in physical activity. Obviously physical activity matters. You can hide a bad diet with lots of calorie burning activities.
Speaking from personal experience as a gym rat and fitness enthusiast, I noticed the most dramatic changes came from changing up my diet, not changing my workout routine. This goes for both losing that last bit of body fat to increasing lean body mass.
Peanut butter requires peanuts and salt, nothing else. Sugar is added because pound for pound, sugar is cheaper than peanuts. Not rocket science.
One doesn’t necessarily need to gain weight just because they age. You might try some rigorous exercise every day as a way of changing that. I’m just 70 and still wear same suit size as college. (40 reg, in case someone figured it’d be in the 50 area…). Throughout my life, I’ve maintained a running program; when it’s to cold/snow covered, I ride an airdyne hard for a hour per day. It does take a commitment, but really, anything worthwhile in life does.
Yeah, but we’ve got Crestor to sell, bro.
We can’t have fit, healthy adults because that breeds fitter, healthier elderly.
That just won’t do, we need permanent patients who are reliant on us and, because they’re miserable, easy to manipulate as a group.
“when sad became sick”
there’s an app for that.
you have to metabolise the calories you take in. nothing could be simpler.
our “new” environment has modified our endocrines. microplastics, insecticides. wheat thins and vaseline, ding dongs and taco sauce.
life is a blur of republicans and meat. hat tip bill griffith.
It doesn’t have to be rigorous to burn fat, in fact, walking is best. Two different hormones get secreted between rigorous and slow exercise. The rigorous one burns sugar in the blood, the slow one burns fat. What you eat is way more important. If you do your best to eliminate carbs, sugar, and preprocessed foods from your diet, you will lose weight.
The most efficient way to do your cardio is when your body is low on carbs. This forces the body to burn stored fat for energy. I like to jog in the mornings on an empty stomach. In the gym, the best time to do your cardio is AFTER resistance training. NEVER before. That way, you’ve already burned up your short term energy supply and your body can burn fat for energy. You only need a few minutes of cardio prior to lifting to warm your body up.
Also, resistance training makes losing fat much easier. If you’re constantly lifting, then your body is always in a state of repair. If you have excess calories, then they can go toward building muscle instead of adding fat.
“The truth is, the older you get, the fatter you get, at least in America.”
One of these things is not like the others.
Statistically old fat diabetics on metformin live longer than non diabetics who are not on it. Look it up.
It sounds like the key is controlling blood sugar. Which is worse, steak or bread?
Metformin is what makes you fat, not the diabetes, as it only addresses the symptoms. If you are Type 1, then you are stuck with whatever works. If you are Type 2, then you can beat it through what you eat and with mild exercise. Dr. Sten Ekberg on Youtube. Watch a few of his videos and then you will know the truth. And this is where I stop, as it is a horse/water thing. I will say I went from a daily blood sugar level of 130-139, to under 100 by following his advice.
Thanks for the reference! I just looked him up. The first video I saw (posted a few hours ago) basically laid out what I mentioned above. The modern diet makes people want to eat more. Lots of processed foods are consumed which are full of white sugar, HFCS, white flour, and seed oils. He said the government guidelines are responsible for our obesity epidemic. He mentions fat being unfairly singled out as the bad guy. People replaced fat consumption with refined carbs. The key is your blood sugar levels.
Fuck Chris Cheng and fuck you idiots for thinking he’s your friend. I’m really starting to not like the NSSF.
chose you made your choice now stfu and proceed…bigoted ratbassturd.
Ah yes, I just hate him because he’s got slanted eyes and a propensity for penis right? Certainly NOT for the shit that comes out of his mouth, that I’ve read and heard multiple times!
I think your evening beverage of choice says “Sherwin Williams” on it.
what shade is “turkish smelt?”
Hey Chose, my guess is that all the demos, gay men and women, black people and a whole lot of others who own guns don’t really give a rats ass what you think. Back under your rock with you.
I know nothing about Chris Cheng but assume that he is a leftist, in which case Chose is correct. Leftists make use of the second amendment to arm themselves but they don’t believe in it for you. The following is a transcription of a twitter conversation between PSR (Print, Shoot, Repeat) and the Socialist Rifle Association.
PSR: This includes everyone. Nazis, Commies, gay, straight, trans, cis, far left, right, every race, religious affiliation and culture. The second amendment is, and should be, for all people with no exceptions.
Socialist Rifle Association: Bro really thought he said something here lmfao. 1. Nazis aren’t people, so jot that down. 2. To think that well armed nazis and the left can simply coexist is to entirely miss the material basis of our antagonism. In fact, the utmost goal of “the Left” is to completely disempower the Right. 3. The 2nd Amendment is not and has never been “for everyone” it was specifically crafted to empower landed whites to crush slave rebellions and kill the indigenous. Historically oppressed peoples who are today armed are allowed to be so IN SPITE of the 2A, not *because* of it 4. Above all, this is just a bunch of Liberal nonsense. F**k the 2A, we are not in favor of “guns for everyone”, we are in favor of arming those groups who stand most to gain from the end of capitalism, and disarming those who stand in our way.
End Twitter Excerpt.
The socialist rifle association is just more honest than most leftists are. That’s what they really think. When push comes to shove they want you disarmed, and while they’d like to keep their guns, if it means the Government goes after the people they dislike they’ll happily turn their guns in.
“That’s what they really think. When push comes to shove they want you disarmed, and while they’d like to keep their guns, if it means the Government goes after the people they dislike they’ll happily turn their guns in.”
They won’t turn in their guns willingly under any circumstances. They view themselves as revolutionaries (just ask them) and of what value is an unarmed revolutionary other than fertilizer? They also know that the revolution never ends because Comrades Lenin wrote on this extensively.
Actual Leftists love guns. They can’t wait for the right opportunity to use them. Against you while you’re standing next to a wall or a nice big hole in the ground.
Don’t take my word for it, ask them. “Liberals get a bullet too” isn’t their pet phrase for no reason.
what value is an unarmed revolutionary other than fertilizer…
Kind of what Marx said when he declared the working class should all be armed, not because he was pro-gun but because he saw it as a means to an end (his “revolution”)
Hortense, way to miss the point you moron.
@De Facto. You know, it’s possible that I’m being too harsh on Chris Cheng, only because I’m so rung out on anything Leftist at this point, I immediately bristle at the merest mention of the same. But I would like to thank you for that little exchange you posted, because that is EXACTLY what I am getting at. I do not trust people who speak like he does and CONSTANTLY mention their “group identities,” because I haven’t found one yet that has any principles they will stick to besides inalienable traits. I’m a content of character kind of man.
Not aware of this guy can you elaborate on his issues?
Hey Safe, I’ll start you where I started actually. Here was the first interview I read from the Cheng.
You’ll see where it all starts going off the rails.
This one is nothing egregious, but the constant talking points being reiterated are ones that I come to associate with bad actors, or those who will easily flip on you.
This is a CNN article. Note the language style in the article, and note how he speaks.
I do not trust the DIE crowd, and if your manner of speech is indistinguishable from CNN, I’m throwing a red flag.
For future reference, the limit of links you can post before moderation seems to be two.
Well Kristen Gillibrand was pro gun till she wasn’t so wouldn’t be the first time one sneaks in to later betray when convenient. Ultimately diversity is irrelevant as we either have the right or we don’t so see how he does longer term and have enough in place elsewhere so he is not critical.
@Safe, I posted a big reply with several links to interviews, and it seems it got deleted…
@Dude, thank you sir! I’ll remember that.
@Safe, yes sir, Sage advice! Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.
I find this whole “old, fat, white guy” term to be age, body shaming and sexiest. I demand an apology! I can’t do anything about my age, sex or race, but I weighed myself this morning. 167 with iron. Only a little more than my ETS.
Got you by 60 pounds, they say I’m an old fat white guy, but I’ve been in the 220s for over 40 years, lifted weights regularly for decades til the arthritis got so bad I couldn’t, muscle weighs more than fat and I don’t feel old or fat, but I will admit to being a white guy…
I’m an old fat white guy in CA. That puts me in the minority.
Where’s my reparation check?
Dropped 40 lbs in the last 10 months. Put on some muscles. I’m old and white but not fat anymore. Quite aways from competing in bodybuilding again but the wife thinks I’m cuter…again🙄. I get tired of the OFWG BS.
I prefer “Big Boned” ala Eric Cartman…
Growing up in the 80s, I learned that stereotyping people based on race was wrong. Now there’s a concerted effort coming from our government and culture to do the opposite, but only if it’s to disparage white guys and occasionally gals.
Only if they are outspoken conservatives…
Of course. That’s the point. White guys are singled out because they’re the most likely to support the liberal regime’s opponents. The Left is especially nasty to black and gay conservatives. The sheep that buy into identity worship are apparently too dumb to notice that.
“stereotypes” are usually based on reality. Trigger by that is YOUR “problem”
Except I’m not “triggered” by “stereotypes.” The lesson learned was not to judge a book by it’s cover. If you can’t comprehend that, then that’s YOUR “problem.”
congrats, that’ll slow down the inevitable aging thing. it’s like frying bacon naked, you know it’s going to hurt, you just don’t know where.
2A is for everyone. Leftists (Libs, Dims, Socialists, Communists, statists, fascists are included).
But rest assured, after the groups listed above eradicate their enemies, they will gladly turn-in their guns and depend on govt to protect them.
I’m not so sure about that. I believe that if the Left could eradicate everyone who disagrees with them, they might enjoy having firearms in their closets because they, the all-knowing, perfect elite, would be safe and responsible with them.
It’s primarily the stereotypical gun owner they have to fear. Most hate the police as much as you and me as well, so they don’t really trust the government with them, either.
So, what it boils down to is that they hate the stereotype, not reality. Of course, there is not now, nor has there really ever been, that stereotype. (TTAG aside. 😎) discovering that really scares them more than the guns.
“if the Left could eradicate everyone who disagrees with them, they might enjoy having firearms in their closets because they, the all-knowing, perfect elite, would be safe and responsible with them. ”
Thinking that more likely, the “elites” will find that there is a ruling group of “elites” who brook no risk that the mob “elites” could launch a counter-revolution.
Well, of course there’s always that. And so it goes with the paranoid. It’s so darned hard to always be the sharpest tool in the shed/drawer. There’s always someone trying to take that place and replace you.
Don’t be so hard on yourselves…Waist size matters only when you try to shove a .45 round into a 9mm tube:)
Ooo Debbie I like it when you talk dirty!
i’m filing a diversity suit: old, mostly-yt, skinny guy discrimination
If we share something in common then we can hash out everything else.
I say come on in! Get some training and be safe. see you at the range. Oh and please stop voting for people that hate individual liberty!
“If I can’t have law enforcement there, then it is a rational conclusion that individual citizens like myself would opt to utilize my Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm and use that firearm in lawful and legal self-defense,” Cheng said.
Why does it need to be individual citizens like yourself? How about just individual citizens? We’ll NEVER win playing silly identity politics games. Identity politics needs to die. And while I’m at it, throw that stupid rainbow insignia in the trash.
Well said Dude! I’m with you.
I’m not sure but I think on this very site I think there was quite the debate about Chris Cheng wearing a shirt with a big rainbow American flag on it. People tried to divert about a shirt with the back the blue flag on a shirt. “The flag on his shirt is not red, white and blue so it’s not an American flag.”
Anyway it was quite the stupid argument but I agree with Dude. Chris Cheng might be a great guy but keep the identity politics out of it. I could care if he is gay but why not just keep it to yourself?
When you start with the rainbow nonsense or being a separate group then you are actually the one who is distinguishing yourself from others. Even using the term Korean-Americans, I might have German and Polish parents but have always just thought of myself as an American.
While I’m aware of the complaints against this guy I don’t see this as an example of identity politics.
Given the overarching structure of the statement, this strikes me as more of giving an example of the preceding noun “citizen” and being used as a singular example to match the noun having been modified by the the adjective “individual”. Probably using himself so as to avoid the potential for giving offense by speaking for another.
Generally, identity politics is about in-group/out-group dynamics not a specific individual without reference to their assumed/claimed in-group. (You can see this in whom they are willing to exclude in non-sensical ways, like Larry Elder for example.) Since, in this case, the speaker/writer is not specifying an in-group for himself, other than “citizens”, in this statement I wouldn’t parse this as referring to himself individually as a member of such a group other than that mentioned.
Further, if he’s knee-deep in modern politics he knows that the identity-based attack for this statement comes at him from the Left very specifically for saying this because it could be parsed by someone looking to virtue signal as “anti-immigrant” with “citizens” being cast as the in-group. Since this is a common “oppressor” faction in modern politics, that’s an obvious third rail. Again, given this and what was actually said, I don’t read this particular statement as being identitarian.
That said, given the current climate reasonable people may parse it differently.
Following the link to the article, the first sentence says, “disproportionately harm minority and LGBTQ communities.” Chris Cheng was there because he was gay and Asian.
“Whether it’s Japanese Americans or any other Asian Americans or LGBTQ Americans, it’s us today, but it’s going to be someone e-l-s-e* tomorrow,” said Cheng, an expert in firearms and culture and their role in American history…
“I am a gay American and have been happily married to my husband of five and a half years,” Cheng said. “Today we see a rise in attacks against Asian Americans, but tomorrow I might be back here talking about the persistent, ongoing violence against LGBTQ Americans.”
The Left sets the rules. Everyone else plays along with their games.
Translation: The Republican argument is “let us keep our guns so [insert identity group] can protect themselves.”
#take back the rainbow
#i love rainbows
they can have pink and brown.
I am a ofwg, too old to run, too old to fistfight, no choice but to shoot you. Remember ofwg don’t hold it sideways.
my mom & dad were both shooters, I was raised with guns. When I was a small child my mom ran a training course teaching women to shoot. She taught white women when she first started doing it, and it was fine and no problems. students could bring their own gun or mom would supply a gun. had a bunch of guns for the students to use from a LGS, they were used but in good shape and the students could buy them after the class ended if they wanted to, no one was obligated but some students usually did buy one.
then one day a black woman showed up and asked mom if she would teach her to shoot. mom said she would and told her show up in the next class. the woman says she has more ladies she knows that might want to learn. mom says to bring them with her to the next basic beginners class starting the next morning, 8AM sharp.
Next morning arrives and here comes a mixture of several Black and Hispanic women. Mom has them go in the barn where she did the class room portion to join the other women which were white and starts class. Everything is fine, classrom time for basics is finally done and its time to go to the range out back and pull some triggers to practice what they learned in class.
Just as they get on the line the sheriff arrives. He shuts it down and tells the black and Hispanic women to leave and the class can continue with the white women.
mom says “I got a better idea. We need someone to hold the targets, you’ll do.”
sheriff looks around and realizes there are 18 women with guns staring at him with a “I dare ya” look. He doesn’t say any thing else and leaves with his two deputies. Never bothered mom or the students again. All the white students that did not bring their own gun bought a gun that day, it wasn’t legal to sell a gun to blacks or hispanics so mom and the other white women paid for the guns and gifted them to the black and Hispanic women.
dacian would have sent your mom and those other white women to prison for straw purchases.
But then he’s proud to be a fascist.
straw purchase it wasn’t. it wasn’t illegal to gift guns to them, they weren’t specifically prohibited from posessing and could legally be gifted or given guns just not sell them guns. the laws were changing back then and posession portions were no longer in force, but the selling portion was.
probably not her first felony.
All these articles that talk about the new gun owners do not make me feel better – like they will be there with us fighting for our rights. Because “they” still see us that fight for our rights, as the gun nuts. They see themselves as different – and when the government decides we all have to disarm, they will gladly comply.
they aren’t supposed to make you feel better, they are to inform you on whats going on.
Unless they’re buying all those guns to “protect” themselves from the old, fat, white supremacist, racist, Nazi, fascist, “don’t say gay”, gun nut, killers they’ve been TOLD are coming after them…
To paraphrase a famous saying; “When I am weaker than you, I ask for equal gun rights because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your gun rights because that is according to my principles.”
If anyone here thinks “liberal gun owners” are friends of the second amendment I would highly suggest browsing reddit’s “liberalgunowners” subreddit for a few minutes. These people are not our friends. At best they believe in gun ownership for themselves and those like them. When the government demands it they’ll turn their guns in and inform on you in a heartbeat. Same for the first amendment. They want freedom of speech for everyone until they’re in control of the government, and then it’s government sanctioned speech only.
It’s time to stop kidding ourselves. I’ve seen it first hand with several liberal friends and coworkers that I converted to being gun owners. When push came to shove they voted for and advocated for assault bans that would have cost them the guns they own. They said as soon as it passed they’d turn their guns in.
“anyone here thinks “liberal gun owners” are friends…”
if that’s what you think then you missed a memo.
we are well aware that a leopard doesn’t change its spots.
“At best they believe in gun ownership for themselves and those like them. When the government demands it they’ll turn their guns in and inform on you in a heartbeat.”
Depends on whom you’re talking about but ultimately this is a “class” issue that such people believe at some level but are unwilling or unable to explain (depending on their intelligence and education).
The ones you care about apply the Dune philosophy you mention with zero intention that it will apply to them, but rather, they believe it will only apply to you. For some this is an explicit assumption, for the less intelligent or well-read it’s an implicit assumption.
You have to consider this against the backdrop of the philosophy that drives these people while at the same time understanding that many of them subscribe to it unknowingly. This is the root of many of their childlike reactions, like the Obama voters who were surprised that Obama wanted to ban their AR-15. They took personal offense to this, and there’s a reason for that.
First, note that they’re not worried about your AR-15.
[Skipping some technical stuff that’s rather long.] This goes back to Marx’s original ideas about classes being distinct. Part of the distinction is entirely moral. Good people vs. bad. This is a distinction that all people make, hence why it’s a good tactic on their part. You believe this the same way they do, all people do; Good people should not be subject to the same punishments as bad people. You probably agree with this instinctually too, which is why it’s so appealing and a, really, masterful manipulation based on the definitions of the words contained in statements that nearly no one immediately disagrees with.
And there’s your explanation, which I have pointed out many times before: They assume that they’re good people while you’re not. You’re a bad person. You need punishment. At the same time, society has a moral imperative to punish you.
This is extremely convenient for them. Marx said “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”.
Notice that he has chosen a class specifically. That’s because they are to be the vanguard of the Revolution. Their armaments must be protected, not yours. Not someone else’s. Only theirs. This has a multifaceted appeal to those you manage to convince of your position.
Once you are declared to be “other” you are “bad” now there are a set of rules that dictate how you shall be treated differently from the “good”. In this instance you shall be disarmed and they shall not be.
This appeals to ideologues and the unthinking alike. Ideologues see it as gaining future advantage over a disarmed adversary. Unthinking people see it like a reward, a political dog-treat, if you will.
Also note that you can have unthinking ideologues. You reference Reddit, well take a scroll and you will find that there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of college-educated Leftists who believe that they are the proletariat, the workers, even if their job and status in life is decidedly bourgeoisie. They’re the same as a welder or a framer even if their bougie little job is writing puff pieces for Vox or Buzzfeed.
And that is because they believe that it is their philosophical position that grants them proletariat status. They don’t need to do manual labor, they need merely hold the right opinions on the right topics. And those people who do manual labor but hold the wrong opinions are, likewise, reversed in status. Those people are bourgeoisie specifically because they hold a bougie opinion.
It’s a convenient set of opinions to hold because it means they’re always right no matter what because they hold the right opinions and therefore are intrinsically “good”. Everyone else is intrinsically bad.
You can find versions of the same game in the current Scott Adams controversy, or in the Black Lives Matter controversy in general. It’s a word-play that ensures victory for one side over the other if you agree to play the game which has been designed for you to lose.
Heads I win, and tails you lose. Excellent explanation.
One of the earlier lessons I taught my daughter is to watch for the fix, and then avoid it. Later, we worked on “turnabout is fair play.”
This is part of a larger shift towards decentralization of “power” due to years of mismanagement undermining public trust in authorities and institutions.
Some of that is warranted, some of it isn’t. The open promotion of distrust where it is not warranted has become a political wedge that is extremely effective and, if we’re honest, goddamn dangerous at every level from society down to personal.
The continuation of both the propaganda and worsening circumstances nationally are going to make this a bigger and bigger issue going forward and I don’t really see any reversal of that trend until we, as a society, hit what an alcoholic would refer to as “rock bottom”.
The problem with the issue being more than personal, as it is for the booze-hound, is that it comes with inertia that will be difficult to stop until a substantial portion of the population finds their own personal “rock bottom”. This facet of a society means that the problems will be allowed to run far longer than the should and, in several cases, probably get past the point of being “fixable” in what we’d consider an acceptable way.
I’d actually argue that’s already happened on a couple of fronts and close to that point on several more. We’re over the event-horizon but most people haven’t yet even noticed the problem, or at least are not yet willing to talk about it.
just a fer instance…
One influential explanation is the idea of “disaster capitalism,” first developed in Naomi Klein’s 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine. Her central thesis is that in moments of public fear and disorientation, it is easier to re-engineer societies: Dramatic changes to the existing economic order, which would normally be politically impossible, are imposed in rapid-fire succession before the public has had time to understand what is taking place. Hence every natural disaster, every economic crisis, every military conflict, and every terrorist attack is exploited by governments to radicalize and accelerate the neoliberal reordering of economies, social systems, and state apparatuses.
Wealth transfers to the top during every “crisis.” Covid tyranny. Upcoming fossil fuel and transportation rationing and prohibitions due to the “climate crisis.”
Ponder this, Dude:
SSA and Medicare are effectively bankrupt. This has been projected with pretty good accuracy since 1990, when the demographics for both Boomers and Xers could be retrospectively analyzed with 10 years of backward looking data to determine the numbers of each generation fairly accurately.
The derived dataset and subsequent statistics have some very interesting and obvious consequences, all of which are highly inflationary. Again, known and predictable with decent accuracy in 1990. A big one is wage inflation for those still working as the largest generation in history retires and the system has to re-equilibrate to fewer workers, leading to fewer people making SSA/Medicare (I’ll stick with SSA from here on out) payments AND also wage inflation at the same time. And, you can calculate how much wage inflation would be needed to cover the shortfall in SSA payments. However, that’s a Ouroboros because wage inflation raises the price the retirees pay for everything increasing their need for a COLA and thereby increasing the need in wage increases to cover the payment gap.
Which is interesting since the Minnesota Fed’s Kashkari says that the Fed knows that wage growth is too high and must be crushed before the Fed can let off the rate hikes. Wait, wut? What does the Fed rate have to do with a worker shortage? Nothing. So, does the Fed not know that the next decade to decade and a half is projected to have a 900,000 person shortage of skilled workers in the BEST years? Does the Fed think it can print people with skills in the 18-60 age range with a specific focus on 50-60 to cover the high end for that juicy 6.2%?
Now, today, if you calculate inflation using the same methodology as the US government had in 1980 (interestingly the year just after Xers) inflation is running at ~15.2%. Yet our official number is 6.2%. That gap produces the effect of a negative compound interest rate at about 9% for those dependent on SSA or other forms of transfer payment (notably welfare). Let’s be really real here -9% is fuckin’ brutal when inserted into the compound interest formula.
And, as stated, they knew this was coming. Yet, instead of fixing it the US government is currently, via the US Treasury creating a working group to manage the rollout of that weird computerized currency I blather about. See, they did the testing for it with the big banks last year and no one really noticed. And to whom will this be rolled out to first? Well, those receiving direct payments from the government. Who’s that? Oh, retirees and those on welfare. Interesting, no?
They make savings and investment nigh impossible at the same time they hit those on a fixed income with a -9% compound rate. They think wage growth is a problem even though they’ve known for 33 years that it was inevitable. And at the same time 33.7% of current retirees are completely reliant on SSA while 90% are 50% reliant. They’ve actively encouraged this for as long as I can remember, too.
And what’s the effect of that? Well, if you squeeze people who can’t work they have to liquidate hard assets to stay afloat. Oh, neat. And what’s the major asset that retirees have? Real estate. Hrm. And the major investment houses are gearing up to buy distressed properties in price ranges that based on estimated discounts make them, statistically, untouchable for ownership by anyone <45. So, they clearly ain't targeting starter homes.
Try this thought experiment: What happens from .gov's point of view if they crush the retirees and force them to liquidate at a 50% discount. They bought in the 1990's and have seen a 400%-600% increase in value. Cut that back to 200%-300% by smashing the market at the same time millions are forced to sell, force that liquidation and apply cap gains to the cream. Sure, the owners lose like an average of $375K to taxes and market collapse but your cronies buy the houses at a discount, sell them to rental agencies (or start their own) and the kickbacks/lobby dollars flow like a river to the sea.
At the same time, major emotional shocks and stress like this are known to reduce life expectancy in the older populations. SSA has a shortfall of $17.2 trillion or so over the next fifteen years so… what if the retirees just started dying, saying, six years earlier than projected? "Savings", no?
Even if that's not an actual plan, it's the inevitable outcome of the current trajectory as people realize the opportunity and the vultures start to circle.
But that could seize the markets a la 2008, no one would plan that, right? Oh, well, what if you could force the *velocity of currency* in the system by digitizing it and applying an expiry date to it? What if the main users of such a currency happened to be exactly the people you just screwed who would be in self-protection mode and the least willing to spend, thereby creating that market seizure? Problem averted, or at least minimized.
It's an interesting situation to consider, and other than the motivations I've not-so-subtly ascribed it is quite real.
“Her central thesis is that in moments of public fear and disorientation, it is easier to re-engineer societies…”
The author probably used tens of thousands of words to say: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
This is the macro of what I’ve been yammering on about for years here.
I’m more interested in the micro aspects of this, the mechanistic explanation at the personal level. Once it is widely understood how this sort of thing is done the population becomes highly resistant to it. IMHO, that’s the only option. Otherwise they will always have the majority eating from their hand during the “emergency”.
How do you get the word out to the bulk of the country that’s been programmed to view everything you say as a conspiracy theory, etc? This also holds true for many “right wingers” as well. I don’t understand how people haven’t noticed the “conspiracy theories” from the past few years have come true. If Russia Collusion wasn’t a wake up call, then Covid should have been.
We’re dealing with a government that literally ignored an official recession last year. Sometimes when I speak to the programmed people, they look at me like I’m crazy. I was talking to someone who literally worked in politics for years. She said, “I trust the government.” She’s a Democrat, but still…
Then read Judges 7. Or, read it first if you like.
This is entirely reversible, as Meerloo points out. But you need to understand how it works first so that you can undo it. I’ve spoken of the tactics that work for this on a single person repeatedly. You just have to take the attitude of a dog-trainer, as the Pavlovians did, and reinforce your message over time.
<10% of people are broken beyond repair, but we don't need to rescue anywhere near 90%. A coalition of 35-40% will do just fine and if you understand how it was done you can undo it in a manner that follows an exponential pattern (or close to it).
And she is smoking hot too…
@Craig in IA
“It’s so darned hard to always be the sharpest tool in the shed/drawer.”
Better to be sly, cunning, and multi-purpose.
Good. Now stop voting for democrats.
I’m 75 and weigh in around 240. So I guess I’m the old fat white guy the left complains about.
Bet few of the soy boys or twinkies complaining could keep up with me for a day.
Been up since 5:00 AM and just came in for breakfast. Will be harnessing a team and going out in the field after breakfast until mid day. After lunch I have to get busy in the shop and make some gate hinges I promised a neighbor. About 2 hours work at the forge with a hammer etc.
“SSA and Medicare are effectively bankrupt. This has been projected with pretty good accuracy since 1990, when the demographics for both Boomers and Xers could be retrospectively analyzed with 10 years of backward looking data to determine the numbers of each generation fairly accurately.”
The above is the Grand Scam. SSA and Medicare are accounting fraud. All payments from SSA and Medicare are issued from the US Treasury. Both programs are designed to let people think they aren’t taking charity/welfare (like that matters to anyone, any more). SSA and Medicare are two pieces of legislation away from being simply normal, common tax-funded programs; like SNAP and Veterans Admin, etc.
SSA and Medicare are in no danger of going “bankrupt”, unless it is to the advantage of the political party in power.
“SSA and Medicare are in no danger of going “bankrupt”, unless it is to the advantage of the political party in power.”
I’ll shorten this with a faux Q&A instead of a number of largish paragraphs.
Why do you think the media hypes generational warfare, specifically in the manner in which it chooses to?
Because they’re told to.
Why are they told to?
Because this is to the advantage of the political party in power.
But the parties change!
No, they don’t. They’re the two wings of the same predatory bird.
And even if they weren’t, one party has taken over the Executive Agencies to the point that the election of the other party matters effectively not at all. Call it the “Deep State” if you like. It’s an entrenched power interest which even the good people in the political parties openly admit to fearing enormously. Just go watch Chuck Schumer say so on national TV.
What advantage do they get from this generational warfare?
The ability to strip mine several major asset classes from the people who hold them and do so to wild applause instead of a firing squad. Money and power, power and money. It’s an old story. This is about convincing the people <40 to allow the killing of the golden goose in return for "redistribution". The 40, which is, ultimately the tip of the wedge for generational warfare.
There is approximately a 0.00% chance that no one in government knows that the drivers here are terrible policy over decades and demographic shifts. Yet they never mention it. This strongly suggests an alternative motivation for what they do say.
But this would be disadvantageous to anyone in power.
It wasn’t to Saddam, Mugabe, Castro etc. It’s only disadvantageous if you plan to stay within the bounds of a Republic. 20 years of increasingly aggressive police state and domestic intelligence service work argue that they do not. So does their own behavior.
There are a shocking number of people willing to burn down everything just so they can rule the ash heap that remains. That’s what you get when you mix post-modern deconstructionist thought with Marxism.
What other explanation is there?
The only other thing that could cause this level of behavior all in one direction is abject stupidity to the point that the country will collapse and probably go through a civil war period that will end the lives of of 30-50% of Americans.
I rate this as unlikely because what you see at every turn is the inverse of the truth, just as you did during “the pandemic”.
Just like regular old boring math, finding Truth^-1 this consistently (like 100% of the time) doesn’t happen by accident. This effectively only happens when you know the truth and actively choose the inverse of it.
Stupidity, well or poorly intentioned or random behavior would produce a spread of behavior which is not observable in the current dataset. Ergo, the base assumption is that this is intentional until proven otherwise (which is about as likely as you asking someone to solve two dozen first order chemistry rate equation problems and they just happen to guess the correct answers and put them in s^-1 units 23 or 24 times out of 24 attempts).
The predictable outcomes of this behavior offer a strong suggestion as to the motivation behind it.
And even if the motivations are entirely wrong, the outcome is still the same.
“SA and Medicare are two pieces of legislation away from being simply normal, common tax-funded programs…”
Which does nothing about the fact that just SAA is slated for $17.2 Trillion in red ink in the next 15 years. That money either comes from somewhere or is added on in inflationary ways that cause the dragon to chase its tail.
Show me the political party willing to advance the idea of adding $1.15 Trillion annually to the SSA tax to fund this. You can’t. Ergo, it’s going to be printed or *borrowed*. The demographics and the arithmetic on this do not lie.
The rock meets the hard place here. What’s the answer to a politico? Blame the Kulaks.
“Which does nothing about the fact that just SAA is slated for $17.2 Trillion in red ink in the next 15 years.”
SSA is simply a budget line item, like all federal programs. The belief that people are self-funding their “lockbox” is only perpetuated by claims of “bankruptcy”.
The central committee cannot yet politically afford to dismantle the scam, but eventually, SSA will just be a program, and income taxes increased in the charade of “paying for” federal programs.
In a nation where a $33T debt is no big thing, absorbing SSA into the budget, and printing money to pretend to fund it, SSA will live on as a spending account, but be no more likely to “go bankrupt” than any other national budget line item.
SSA/Medicare are nothing more than a political football that benefits politicians. The king has no clothes. Time to end the scam, and admit what it is. Maybe doing that will put an end to the annual budget scare over welfare payments.
“…SSA will just be a program, and income taxes increased in the charade of “paying for” federal programs…”
I’ll keep this one short.
This cannot be a serious comment from you, Sam, so I assume it to be your usual mild sarcasm.
You’re talking about increasing expenditure, and therefore taxes, printing/debt by ~6.5% of total current GDP annually on top of the deficits we’re already running. In a country where the average citizen already pays 55% in taxes and fees to the various levels of government and is also getting crushed by inflation that the Fed, by definition, has no tools to deal with.
How you fund it on paper doesn’t matter, that’s all sophistry. Attempting to actually fund it will destroy the economy and bankrupt the country practically overnight through inflation, over taxation causing flight, a Zimbabwe style depression, currency collapse or the bankruptcy of the US government.
But failing to fund it breaks some pretty serious promises.
The only way out of this is to take whole other sections of the US government that are useless/cause problems/are unconstitutional from the jump, chop them and then use their budgets to fund this while fundamentally restructuring the whole system.
Or you can spend 15 years gaslighting the population against itself and pick a scapegoat that has money and toss them into the woodchipper to divvy up the proceeds amongst the plebs. Roman Empire style. I wonder which the pols will choose at this juncture?
IMHO, they made this decision long ago. Hence the past 15 years.
“This cannot be a serious comment from you, Sam, so I assume it to be your usual mild sarcasm.”
Actually, I am serious. The concept of SSA being somehow different from any other program is a fraud, a scam. All the SSA “contributions” are simply means-tested taxes; all the “contributions” are sent to the US Treasury.
SSA “buys” special, restricted to SSA government notes. When SSA must make expenditures, those special notes are cashed in, and the expenditures come straight from the Treasury, marked on the “ledger” as earmarked for SSA.
SocSec is simply an accounting sleight-of-hand, used to “sell” the idea to the US public during the “great depression”. The public would not tolerate charity/welfare, so the concept was dressed up as self-funding retirement (originally designed only to ensure that old people were not completely destitute).
Can no longer find the citation, but Claude Pepper, Senator from Florida, a short time before he died, admitted that the design of SocSec was a pyramid scheme, but none of the creators, nor those who voted to install Soc Sec, would be around to see/experience the end game.
As to “paying for” Soc Sec? Ref again the current $33T national debt. That will never be retired, so what diff does it make that trillions more will be required to keep SocSec alive?
As money becomes more and more worthless, one day, everyone will be a millionaire, and can pay off all their personal debts quite easily. (Weirmar Republic; “A loaf of bread in Berlin that cost around 160 Marks at the end of 1922 cost 200,000,000,000 Marks by late 1923.”
You’re both right. There’s no lockbox, and the money paid into SSA went into the general fund. The people receiving SS got paid by the workers paying in, and the surplus became an IOU from the government. The government is fiscally irresponsible and can’t afford it’s current spending, much less pay back the IOUs. As SSA payments increase beyond taxes, IOUs are cashed in, which is really just more payment from general funds. “Bankruptcy” happens when the IOUs are all used up, Since SS payments are coming from the general fund anyway, the government could continue to make those payments after the bankruptcy by borrowing even more. Eventually, the government will run out of the ability to borrow and have to stop payments. With the contraction of the Xers from the Boomers, this has been an inevitability.
This brings up the question of why a known faulty system was promoted? Self interest while leaving future generations holding the bag? Useful idiots? People looking to take advantage when the system falls apart?
“This brings up the question of why a known faulty system was promoted?”
Collapse of SocSec is an expedient both parties can use; never let a crisis go to waste.