“Members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged President Obama to take action on gun control legislation Tuesday at their first meeting with the president in more than two years,” thehill.com reports. “Obama ‘reaffirmed his commitment’ to the issue during the White House meeting, one administration official said.” Interesting that thehill.com used the term “gun control” instead of “gun safety” or “gun reform.” The appropriate term is, of course, “civilian disarmament.” That said, scribes Arnie Parnes and Justin Sink didn’t hold back in the anti-gun bias department. Oh no, not at all . . .
Many black lawmakers have noted that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are victims of gun violence. Trayvon Martin, a black teenager killed in Florida last year in an altercation with a neighborhood watch volunteer, did not come up, a source familiar with the meeting said. The trial of the man accused of killing Martin has received enormous attention in the last few weeks.
Holy Meaningless Digression Batman. What in God’s name does the Zimmerman trial have to do with the problem of African-American gang bangers shooting each other and the occasional bystander?
By the same token, why would a group of Americans who were disarmed and then enslaved, tortured, beaten, killed and economically and politically disenfranchised support civilian disarmament? Sorry, gun safety.
Setting “common sense” to one side, President Obama signaled his desire to shift focus from spree killing to gang bangers shooting each other and the occasional bystander. I mean, “urban gun violence.”
The president told the lawmakers that he will focus on gun violence and acknowledged the problem wasn’t just about tragic events like the one in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six educators were killed by a lone gunman in December . . .
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), another attendee of Tuesday’s meeting, said Obama has not “ceded any ground” on the issue, adding that he “is particularly concerned about the urban gun violence that happens in places like Chicago.”
“But he’s perplexed as to how Congress could not have moved after the heinous tragedy in Sandy Hook,” she added.
Strange that a Constitutional scholar, the Chief Executive who swore to uphold and defend America’s raison d’être, still doesn’t get it. Unless he does . . .
“The president told lawmakers he would focus on gun violence…”
Yes, please Mr. President. Go back to Chicago and show us exactly how it’s done.
Oh, that he would leave his SS guards behind and simply ask the gang bangers in Englewood to disarm themselves…
I think the GOP would love it if he kept pushing this garbage for the next year or so… The midterm adds practically write themselves.
Why is any part of congress petitioning the executive branch to take action on legislation? Have they put a bill on his desk? No? Then STFU.
Amen brother, couldn’t have said it better myself.
The irony is that without the systemic violence of inner city gangs to drive their campaigns, the Congressional Black Caucus’ members wouldn’t be in DC to begin with.
I agree completely that inner city violence drives their caucus.
And now you know why the Democrats want citizens disarmed — because violent criminals and gang-bangers thrive when citizens are not armed. So there actually isn’t any irony in their platform. They talk about reducing violence in the inner cities but their “solution” has nothing to do with actually reducing the violence. Rather, their “solution” perpetuates the violence. Sadly, their constituents fail to see that.
Dead-cold-ON analysis. They LOVE violence, ESPECIALLY of the gun, bang! – some poor suckah DEAD! – sort.
There is very little left that is more sadistically dishonest that this. THEY BELONG IN PRISON. FOREVER.
MUCH moreso than the gang-bangers whose craven violence and murder they feast upon….
What? Progressives not giving up their nanny-state agenda?
The Deuce, you say.
Progressive, as in progressing towards a ‘1984’ statist hell.
Libtards is a better word for them…..liberal democrat ‘Big Gov’ morons.
Black Caucus…don’t care…irrelevant.
Again, this is so rediculous, it might as well be said then, that if African-Americans are so disproportionately involved in “gun violence”, then a ban on African-Americans would therefore significantly reduce said gun violence? This of course is absurd. As was stated by the OP, how does a group forget so soon that disarmament leads to oppression ?
Darling, just do what the government says & there won’t be any trouble.
It’s kind of sad how members of the Congressional Black Caucus are completely out of touch with needs of most African Americans.
Then again, that’s pretty in line without how most politicians here in the US are completely out of touch with the needs of us regular folks while they go about passing legislation to help ridiculously rich industry/corporation X.
The black caucus caters to white guilt, instead of it’s black constituents.
actually, that statement is off. The Black Caucus exists because of majority minority districts. Most Black Caucus members would not be in office if they had to represent non-majority minority districts, save for an Allen West or JC Watts.
Most politicians, whether members of the Congressional Black Caucus or otherwise, don’t care about the needs of their constituents: they care about their agenda which is more power, control, and money.
Besides, government’s role is serving justice and managing our military to repel foreign attacks. Asking government to help us with our “needs” is a really bad idea.
Okay, wait a second… there is an indavidual group specifically for black congress members? Are there groups for hispanic and white members, or would that be racist? Am I missunderstanding something here?
Any subgroup in congress can be a caucus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus
there are lots of caucuses (ie, Sportsmen). The Caucus was created in the early 1970’s as a number of Black reps were elected and wanted a forum to discuss (mainly) urban and Black issues. There is a tea party caucus, a Hispanic caucus, and others so let’s not make this a racial issue in response to a legitimate cause. Moreover, even Allen West and JC Watts were members of the Caucus, much to the chagrin of the other members.
Thanks for the info and sorry for the @&&hat comment
thanks for being a gentleman
Oh No, not the black caucus. Now there is a real think tank.
Yeah.
The “Soul Train” of politics.
It’s not about Sandy Hook, but lets quote how many people were killed every single time we refer to the crime.
Think of the kids ™!
anyone but me think its irritating to think that a guy who smoked pot in college has done absolutely nothing to stem the cycle of incarcerating people in the inner city for … smoking the same stuff he did in college? why should i listen to a drug scofflaw, about guns?
and allegedly did a little blow. . . .
hmm, so was he then illegally in possession of that shotgun he is pictured firing? For anyone else, use of an illegal substance causes you to be stripped of you gun rights.
There is a fix to Chicago’s gun violence. Arm the Engelwood neighborhood and let the problem take care of itself, wink, wink…
Well, the state department said it would arm Al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian opposition groups too, right?
“Lee said Democrats are still seeking a comprehensive solution that includes efforts to ban military-style rifles, limit the number of bullets in magazines and take on inner-city hand-gun violence. She noted that public opinion polls show overwhelming support for those provisions and lamented that the same enthusiasm hasn’t materialized on Capitol Hill.”
What polls is this idiot talking about? Every poll I’ve seen indicated the public DOES NOT support these measures and has moved on.
Also, why are these representatives interested in “Boosting black employment” aren’t they supposed to represent all their constituents? What about Hispanic unemployment or white unemployment?
whichever poll they’ve bought and paid for from Quinnipiac recently – you know, the same outfit that generated the “90% of Americans want background checks” out of some 1,750 people polled in predominantly northeast states.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=1843
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
I know it was discussed, Photoshop or not, the first time the photo was used but what is that model of shottie that has the port on top of the barrel like that?
I just noticed when I moused over the photo, the caption said “partially ported”.
I’m not a shotgun guy, but I have access to a huge knowlege base. You guys!
I think some Beretta O/Us are…
Ironic that the founder of the Black Caucus and the most rabid anti-gunner, John Conyers, did not terminate his office manager after she was caught bringing a gun to the federal courthouse in downtown Detroit where his office is located. She only got a ticket, rather than federal charges . . . . . some animals are more equal than others indeed. http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/10/democratic-aide-brings-gun-into-courthouse-receives-ticket/
Of course, this is the same John Conyers, whose considerably younger “wife” (those who know know) Monica Conyers, served a 3 yr jail term for taking bribes while serving on Detroit’s City Council. . . .
mid terms are coming. Keep pissing on that 3rd rail, dems.
Democrats are gonna die on the gun control hill and Republicans will die on the abortion hill.
“… on the abortion hill”
I imagine it is easier to just not think about all those losses huh?
CBC is using another boogeyman to explain away their failure to stem the violence among young, poverty-cycled African-American men in the inner city. They’ve failed them on schools, they’ve failed them on jobs and they’ve failed them on opportunity, so using gun rights as a boogeyman is a nice coverup and distraction.
Obama has a choice: he can attack us — law abiding gun owners — or he can attack gangs. Call me crazy, but I think that he will choose to defend his constituency and attack us.
The term “gun violence” drives me batty. It totally removes volition/will from the equation. Like we are dealing with a bird flu epidemic or a meteor strike.
Chicago doesn’t have a “gun violence” problem. Chicago has a problem with gang members shooting each other, and sometimes innocent bystanders.
a disproportionate amount of violence in an ethnic subsection of American society indicates the “values” of said subsection. Brutally honest….
Can we have a Congressional White Caucus? No? Ok, just checking.
In the spirit of racial equity, is there also a Congressional White Caucus?
” Travon Martin did not come up”, but allow me to bring it up now. Prick! I bet he wishes some black kids were killed at Newtown, you know -for the children.
“Many black lawmakers have noted that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are victims of gun violence. ”
YEAH, BY OTHER BLACKS.
What’s being done to keep these murderers in jail so the rest of the people can live their lives in peace?
Black leaders only have themselves to blame for how things have turned out as well as a government more interested in handouts instead of a hand up.
MLK would be proud of his people. (sarcasm)
If Martin had shot and killed Zimmerman we never would have heard about it at all. It wouldn’t have gotten beyond the local news. Oh, wait! That’s not what this article was about…
President Who(‘s Your Daddy)?
I think a lot of poor, urban blacks just want the killing to stop, and buy into the misguided notion that if only all the guns would dissapear, things would go back to beating and stabbing, which at least don’t generally kill bystanders. RF makes a very good point:
“…why would a group of Americans who were disarmed and then enslaved, tortured, beaten, killed and economically and politically disenfranchised support civilian disarmament? Sorry, gun safety.”
Racial politics and gun politics overlap into quite the historical minefield, but there are a few things to consider. One is that blacks are far more likely to be excluded from legal firearms ownership than whites. Young blacks are far more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for crimes that young whites commit at the same rates. A white frat boy gets in a bar fight, he lawyers up, pleads to disorderly conduct and pays a fine. Black kid gets in a stupid fight, he could be looking at felony assault charges. Same thing with drug possession, joyriding, etc. So a lot of law abiding black folks have that big F on their rap sheet from when they were young and stupid, and can’t legally buy a gun, so why should they give a damn about your right to do so?
Another point – “gangbangers.” The attitude commonly expressed on TTAG is that “gangbangers” killing each other doesn’t matter. In fact, maybe it’s a good thing. However, in a lot of these neighborhoods, being in a gang isn’t really a choice. You live on the block, you’re in the gang, whether you like it or not. You cross the wrong street, you’re fair game. A lot of kids try to keep their heads down, but you can’t just stay inside all the time. Because of Rahm Emanuel’s scheme to close a bunch of schools in Chicago (opening the door for an inner-city developer land grab), the violence is going to be bad when school starts and kids have to walk across rival turf. Gangs form when societal institutions break down. Not enough jobs are available, so the black market is the only option. The police can’t be trusted, there is no access to courts to resolve disputes. It was no different with the Irish and Italian gangs in NYC at the turn of the last century, except that situation improved. Italians and Irish eventually achieved “white” status in society, although I can sometimes still feel my defective Irish criminal gene twitching.
The Right is all about putting these “gangbangers” in jail, but most kids who go on to kill someone have already been in the system for minor offenses. They’ve got a rap sheet and no future.
I’d like to see the gun rights movement support the notion that non-violent offenders (or people with minor violent offences, like fighting) be able to get their gun rights back after a time (I know a lot of people support this). I’d also like to see a less callus attitude toward urban violence. It’s one thing to say that civilian dissarmament won’t solve urban violence, it’s another to say “who gives a shit if gangbangers kill each other?”