An article in The Florida Courier, which describes itself as “Sharing Black Life, Statewide”, illustrates that black Americans’ attitudes toward guns and the Second Amendment are changing. For the better. Nowhere in the article did I detect a sentiment in favor of more legal restrictions, not even the usual to-be-sure quote from someone in the civilian disarmament community, giving the piece “balance” . . .
“For the average responsible Black person I believe it is very beneficial to have a CCP. I believe that many Blacks are afraid of guns. The reason is they have never been properly trained on how a firearm works. Once they get that understanding, they are eager to own and carry a firearm,” (NRA instructor Damon Barrs) added.
“If enough Blacks obtained a CCP and were properly educated, then many of our neighborhoods would safer – one street at a time,” Barrs concluded.
Barrs is also an NRA supporter.
“There are a lot of benefits of NRA membership,” he said. “They not only advocate for Second Amendment rights, but also provide insurance for one’s weapons along with other perks. I’ve been a member for two years and strongly advise becoming a member,” he continued.
This article is evidence of a trend that has accelerated in the last few years. With President Obama’s push for ever more restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms, the Second Amendment and infringements on it have gotten a lot of attention. The more people learn, the more they are converted to Second Amendment supporters.
There is even a name for this effect. It is called “the shooting cycle”. In this last cycle, the effect was dramatic. From the PewResearchCenter:
Over the past two years, blacks’ views on this measure have changed dramatically. Currently, 54% of blacks say gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety, nearly double the percentage saying this in December 2012 (29%). By contrast, whites’ views have shown less change: 62% now view guns as doing more to protect people, up from 54% in December.
Like the rest of the population, most black people are not criminals. But the black population stands a higher chance of being victimized by crime.
The rise of black stars in the gun culture, such as Ken Blanchard, Colion Noir, Rick Ector, Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee, and Police Chief James Craig of Detroit have primed the pump. Once someone gets beyond the propaganda that it’s guns that are root cause of this criminal behavior, they have ample reason to support the RKBA and armed self defense.
Black criminals in the hood aren’t interested in the Second Amendment, taking concealed carry classes, or being safe while exercising their right to defense of self and others. A recent study in Chicago emphasised the point.
From a recent Chicago Crime Lab study, a survey of criminals whose crimes involved guns in Chicago:
Still, it is interesting to note that the majority of respondents demonstrated little knowledge of firearms. Many of the comments by Rs demonstrated ignorance of the manner in which firearms function, the ammunition requirements and the capabilities of their weapon of choice. Rs never discussed safe handling or storage practices, nor did they mention efforts to improve their knowledge of the firearms they possessed.9
The gun culture welcomes responsible black people. When people in a community accept the rule of law and cooperate with police and take responsibility for their own self defense, violent crime rates drop dramatically.
Being legally armed is a strong leading indicator that the rule of law applies to you, that you have rights (and know them), and a reason to support the system that supports your rights. And don’t look now, but the word seems to be spreading.
From the Crime Prevention Research Center:
— Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
It remains to be seen what effect black Second Amendment support will have on the politicians who represent them. Still, more black gun owners can only further the cause of gun rights. Is that the hope or the change?
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Awesome. I wonder if this could lead to a rebellion against the welfare state.
Doubtful…only removal of illegals will black Americans get back not the work force.
Yea but a lot of funny things can happen on the way to gun store. A fellow starts thinking about self defense and self reliance. Then. Same fellow starts thinking about helping people versus keeping them down. Next thing you know this guy starts looking at the left and the democrats a little different. He starts wondering why blacks suffer so much more in big cities run by democrats. He starts wonderig why so many black babies are aborted. The same guy may feel black churches are expected to deliver votes but never have a steak in laws to help the family.
Then you have a republican like Donald trump polling 25% with blacks or God forbid Ben Carson who is very well liked in the black community. Democrats typically Win te black vote by 90%. They need and count on it. Change that number to 25 % repiblican and the whole political world turns upside down.
“Yea but a lot of funny things can happen on the way to gun store.” Sounds REALLY glib; (nevertheless) as you explained, relationships can be remarkably obscure. The first thing that comes to mind in building character is probably not guns; yet, if you reason it through, it probably is a real character-builder.
I wonder how may 16-year old boys began to seriously think about their role in the community outside their immediate/extended family when they mustered with a musket on their shoulders.
More liberty can never be a bad thing if we believe in a free society, plus firearms freedom seems to be particularly contagious.
I would enjoy moments of optimism more if I could trust it. Fingers crossed.
I’d say that’s the change, Dean. The hope is that it will continue and grow.
“The gun culture welcomes responsible black people.”
I know the topic of the article, but ‘black’ could have just been left out of that sentence. That would have said it all.
I like to say that we (gun culture) welcome all responsible people, whether they are black, white, brown, yellow, red, polka-dotted, striped, plaid, paisley, or any other color/texture/flavor.
Paisley? C’mon, that’s just tacky.
You left out chartreuse.
No Seersucker.
And especially no Seersucker bell-bottom.
I went into Sears the other day to get a seersucker suit. They told they didn’t have any, told me to go across the street to Cox’s.
Gunr, my great uncle used to tell a story about a really bad suit he wore often:
“I sent my wife to buy a seersucker suit at Cox’s but she got confused, went to Sears, and came back with this.”
When good people are armed, it’s never a problem. Sometimes, it’s a solution.
Nice – like it.
As Sherriff Clarke says “fix the culture”. The not to be spoken aspect of all this is that the black culture is and has been broken for generations. When 30% of black males will be CONVICTED AND SERVE TIME there is legitimate reason to fear arming blacks. Ultra violent, drug addled, low class, sexually unhinged, uneducated …. this is one helluva mix. The “responsible blacks ” realistically are a minority in their culture. I have no problem with Dr Ben Carson owning guns. I have big problems with the pants drooping, pot smoking, violent BUT NOT CONVICTED young male (who will pass a NICS check) uparmoring. Sorry if that offends folks.
You happen to have some inherently racist views. What does anyone’s pants or fashion sense have to do with them be upstanding citizens.
Secondly, a large majority of any people of color arrested and or convicted is due to drug distribution or possession. 90% of those arrested for drug related offenses are people of color. This is true even though whites, asians, and any other race use and sell drugs at proportionate rates.
Your comments about “sexually unhinged” black people is the same fear mongering used to pass the first drug laws and laws against black gun ownership.
You might want to do a little more reading on the history of laws in this country and your false narratives on black people in America.
I agree. We all fancy ourselves bar-stool statisticians (I no less than anyone else). And yet, as any serious student of data and statistics will concede, it is dangerous to leap to any conclusions. The deeper you dig into the statistics the more insight you get and the more doubts you have about your initial impressions.
I’m reading American Homicide by Roth. He sets out to evaluate a “working hypothesis” that the 3 major determinants in the homicide rate among unrelated adults are:
– popular confidence in the fairness of government;
– honesty of government officials; and,
– confidence that one will not lose one’s standing in the hierarchical society.
He recites evidence to support his hypothesis by reciting the available data from the colonial period in the US to the present along (with minor citations of data for European countries). He finds that the data fits with the hypothesis very well. (The reader must be his own judge).
The difficulty with a simple “race” or “culture” hypothesis is that one would expect relatively stable relationships between various racial or cultural homicide rates. E.g., that black-on-black rates would always be higher than white-on-white rates; but, there is no such stability. Such relationships widen and narrow; sometimes even inverting. When the CHANGES in homicide rates for a given race/culture (e.g., black-on-Irish or whatever) coincide with changes in politics, politicians, or the economy, the impact of race or culture alone ceases to be as plausible as we have assumed.
Over a long-enough period of time, culture and even race (as we conceive of that term in the US) changes. E.g., the Irish were once thought of as a distinct “race” from Anglo-Saxons; and, even dismissing this perspective, Irish culture of the potato-famine was not the same thing as Irish culture today.
We can, of course, chalk fluctuating homicide rates up to just “culture” and admit that “culture” changes rapidly (as quickly as decade to decade); but, that summary doesn’t shed any light on the inquiry at all. What information lies in a hypothesis that homicide is related to random changes of culture within each ethnic group? We remain in search of illuminating independent variables that correlate with homicide. Suppose Roth’s hypothesis has great explanatory value. What then?
My conclusion is that WE are SCREWED! Were Roth correct, then to reduce our homicide rate we would have to find some way to significantly:
– improve popular confidence in the fairness of government;
– improve popular confidence in the honesty of public officials; and,
– maintain significant rates-of-growth in employment and real income.
Despite America having a relatively free-functioning republic with a democratic degree of suffrage, we appear to be utterly incapable of operating our political and economic systems effectively. E.g., witness the astonishingly low level of confidence in Congress and low confidence in the judiciary and executive branches of government.
If Roth is correct (always a possibility), it might be futile to seek a “fix” to the “culture” of one minuscule faction of the culture (today’s designated-culpret being young black males). Instead, it might be necessary to “fix” a number of huge societal issues entirely outside the scope-of-control of this faction. (Or, outside the control of black single mothers.) Those of us who vote might have to “fix” our ideas about political-economy.
It will be far easier to buy more guns and ammo and shoot-our-way-out; but, of course, that solution would cause the homicide rate to soar.
I would argue that congress’ inability to do much of anything means that it is functioning exactly as the founders intended.
I will have to get Roth and read him. He seems to be saying what I have seen in the data. I disagree with your pessimism. The factors that you show as required for low homicide rates are often referred to as “culture” as a shorthand. “Culture” is relatively persistent, but it can change, and the attitudes that Roth mentions can change as well. That seems to be one of the points that he is making.
” I disagree with your pessimism. ”
I am by nature pessimistic; but it waxes and wanes.
To some degree, the factors that Roth identifies are outside the control of everyone. E.g., if a neighboring country’s government decides to invade your country then that is going to be very disruptive to your country’s situation. Your own government may handle its defense responsibilities as well as possible but still suffer from a loss of confidence. (This example is recited merely to illustrate the kinds of factors outside control.)
Naturally, most factors are within our control; that of the government and that of its people. E.g., what economic paradigm is chosen by the people and their government. Americans might choose capitalism and that system may work well or poorly for us from time to time. (Capitalism is vulnerable to the “business cycle”.) Scandinavians may chose socialism and be very happy with it notwithstanding that there might be a penalty in GNP growth in the long term. They might manage their system of socialism better or worse.
And, of course, apart from what government can do (for better or for worse) the people are responsible for their own culture; and, we may do well or poorly. Arguably, the Hindu caste system is very bad; however, it seems to auger for reduced homicide. Slavery is even worse; and yet, it too can auger for reduced homicide; I hasten to add that slavery is not a policy option available to a nation such as ours.
In this respect, the possibilities are fascinating; for better and for worse. Take, for example, the homicide of young black males and how various segments of our social hierarchy deal with this demographic.
The Progressives tell this demographic that they are doomed to survive on welfare. Due to the legacy of slavery, there is no opportunity for them ever to succeed in any craft or profession. Due to a shortage of money for schools, their schooling will always be inferior. They will never be given their first job. It’s not the fault of the individual; it’s entirely society’s fault.
There remains a segment of the population that is racially prejudiced. Granted, this segment is shrinking and becoming more mild in its intensity; however, the last vestiges of bigotry are not yet long lost from memory. These folks tell the young black male that his failure is his own fault. He neglected his education; his mother failed to use discretion in choosing a mate. He didn’t take advantage of the education that was available to him. He makes bad choices in his dress and manners which causes employers to shun him.
The individual in this young black male demographic, hearing these two sets of messages, is left despondent about his place in the social hierarchy. The respectable means of ascending the social hierarchy appear – to him – to be foreclosed. And so, he looks for whatever means that seem available to him to attain and sustain whatever sense of position he can in his society. Basketball; break-dancing; gang activities.
We the people of our society – Progressives and bigots alike – are to a large extent responsible for the young black male’s perception of the world around him. We have “talked him into” his perception. Roth inspires the reader to wonder how much the homicide rate might drop within this demographic if society abandoned such rhetoric.
(The individual lives in two realities:
– a REAL-reality of a Section 8 roof over his head, food-stamps to nourish him, a school to go to.
– a PERCIVED-reality of hopelessness and fault-less-ness.
His real reality is – probably – enough to maintain a modest homicide rate according to Roth’s thesis. His perceived-reality is probably controlling per Roth.)
Suppose, for a moment, that “structural” changes in the economy condemned this demographic to a lifetime of un-/under-employment. And yet, suppose that young black males began to see their role in society were to: keep their criminal record clean; survive to age 21; obtain a CWP and a gun; become the defense system for their family and neighborhood. Such a role might serve to attain and sustain an individual’s status in society. (See Jennifer Carlson’s “Citizen-protectors: the everyday politics of guns in an age of decline”. From the liberal view of a Phd candidate, Carlson makes THIS argument!)
Your optimism is based on a sense that society CAN change its culture(s) in just such ways as to have an impact consistent with Roth’s hypothesis. In a nation as wealthy as the US, with a high level of literacy and education, and no enormous countervailing vested interest (e.g., slavery), such evolution IS POSSIBLE.
My pessimism is based on a sense that we WILL NOT change our cultures.
And this is why these problems won’t ever be solved. Any conversation about race that strays ever so slightly from politically correct orthodoxy automatically elicits accusations of racism.
Some people hear that and instantly realize that you’re not serious about the discussion, so they withdraw. Others are so shaken by having just been called a racist, that they, too, withdraw.
Meanwhile, the racial apologists are left to fill the void with phony statistics, and a redefinition of “historical record” as being a “false narrative.” Good grief.
You are correct in part; however, that part can lead to the wrong behavior.
Clearly, we get a strong correlation between violence and race. So, a natural reaction is to point the finger at the accused race and say: ‘You see, it’s in their blood – or something. They can’t change!; or, at best, they won’t’
We have to strive to avoid this knee-jerk reaction. Yes, we get a strong correlation with race; and, yet, we know that there is something else – probably several other factors – that underlies what appears at first impression to be rate.
In our discourse we need to take care to find the driving independent variables that will admit of social influence. E.g., it serves no purpose to say that the reason this individual is violent is because he has a black parent. It might be useful to say that his violence might be explained by having been reared in a single-parent household.
In other words, Mark, torture the data until it confesses? I prefer cold hard facts to pretty little lies. You can trot out seemingly confounding variables like race and single parent families and call it an inconclusive day. Or, you can come back and control for those factors and find that single parent familyhood does not hold the same predictive power across races. Hence, it’s not the real driver.
Unless one is willing to entertain that an uncomfortable conclusion could well be the truth, then the entire exercise is sure to be a sham, as feelings soothing supplants fact finding.
Jonathan – Houston “In other words, Mark, torture the data until it confesses? . . . seemingly confounding variables like race and single parent families and call it an inconclusive day. Or, you can come back and control for those factors and find that single parent familyhood does not hold the same predictive power across races. Hence, it’s not the real driver.”
Jonathan, I did not intend to identify single-parent households as THE real driver; but, merely as an illustrative possibility other than race per-se. Forgive me if that was not clear in my remarks.
The search for explanatory independent variables is going to look like a process of torture for the purpose of obtaining a confession. It’s tough; or, so I remember it when I was doing my course work in econometrics long ago. I don’t have a lot of preconceived favorite independent variables to which I cling with as much fever as I cling to my guns.
I just doubt that race per se is the real explanatory variable. Something like “culture” is probably much closer to being a real explanatory variable; but, then, the term “culture” doesn’t illuminate much. What ever IT or THEY are, these explanatory variables seem to correlate strongly with race, poverty, locale, education, single-parent households. And, all those variables are intercorrelated.
I’m reading American Homicide by Roth. His hypothesis is that homicide rates correlate with:
– popular confidence in the fairness of government
– honesty of government officials
– sense of security of one’s position in the social hierarchy
If he is correct, then such factors as race, poverty-per-se, locale, education and single-parentage don’t have much (if any) explanatory value. If you are interested, I recommend the book. Be forewarned, however, that the first many chapters that cover the colonial period through the 19th century are somewhat of a slow slog. Starts to get really quite interesting once he gets into the 20th century (where we have a stronger recollection of the details of America history.)
If Roth’s hypothesis is correct (about which I’m not yet convinced, but it looks promising) then we are REALLY SCREWED. It would take a monumental coalescing of our national culture to cure our socio-political-economic disfunction enough to drive homicide rates toward zero.
First off the criminals of any color already have guns so it’s a moot point.
Secondly how you wear your pants is not your race. I respect the way Thomas so well dresses and carries himself. I cannot say the same for Emiem.
Third what anybody puts in their body ain’t nobody else’s business. It’s between them and their God. And maybe their close family.
Fourth blacks do commit more crimes per capita than whites. Esp violent crime.
But most black people and most white people are decent people not wanting to hurt anybody or steal.
How many times do we have to say this. The criminal predators are already carrying a gun, illegally. Most have a record at an early age. Most can only carry a gun legally at eighteen if not twenty one. Most that will be a “gangsta” will be one much earlier than that.
In the end, the laws that keep felons from carrying a gun once they are out of prison only effects, wait for it, the law abiding.
But in the end, with the laws that we have now, (which violates a natural and G-d given right to defend ones life, even felons) we have an even more restricted field of candidates that can legally carry a firearm. So the blacks that can legally carry have shown themselves to be the most law abiding, just as most people, no matter the race with a CCL, are of the most law abiding.
And if they show themselves to be a predator that hasn’t been caught yet, well, that’s why I carry a gun.
It’s apparent you have never smoked pot, or you wouldn’t be spouting MSM propaganda about how “horrible” and how bad it makes people act, etc…Pot is not the issue of urban gangs that lead them to violence, It’s the control over the sale that leads to violence.
I really don’t have any problem with a libertarian society. Just that we don’t have one here and now. So open flagrant pot smoking is against the law, thumbing your nose at the rules of society and downright uncultured. It is a way to lift your middle finger to everyone who you walk past. Every small child on the stoop that has to watch you. And your own withdrawal from a responsible lifestyle.
Sexually unhinged? Mandingo fear much?
You sound like a Jim Crow era southern Democrat. The best friend of division is ignorance, and you sir are empowering both.
Mandingo? Huh… I am talking about a sexually irresponsible culture amigo. One that totally devalues women, their role as mothers and the lifetime partnership of a wife. When men spread their sperm like Johnny Appleseed and then walk out on the baby and mother. When the mother sees killing her unborn baby as a viable control method, that amigo is a sexually unhinged culture.
When you pass away into oblivion, the world will be a little better off.
If a person is interested in arming themselves legally, that’s what you might call a self-selection process. Someone who’s willing to jump through the hoops to acquire a CCW, probably isn’t doing it so he can hold up the local 7/11. See the study done with Texas CCW holders, who’re 40 times less likely to commit non-violent crime than average.
Also, we need to be open about this: your views are needlessly discriminatory and, while you have the right to express them, you’re very clearly in the minority here. The 2A doesn’t require an OK from the fashion police. Or from anyone else, for that matter.
“. . . your views are needlessly discriminatory . . .”
THIS is the point that we ought to take to heart. There is no USEFUL purpose served by constantly drumming on the disproportion of blacks, hispanics and native Americans convicted of crimes. It is sufficient to point out that perpetrators of crimes are concentrated in certain demographic categories. The problem of violent crime is not randomly distributed across all demographics.
Therefore, it makes no sense to infringe on the right of the People to KBA generally when the problem of violence is clearly peculiar to particular individuals. By far, those individuals who commit crimes of violence are already dis-abled of the RKBA; i.e., individuals who have been convicted or at least arrested for felonies or domestic violent crimes.
It is racist or classiest to tar the civil rights of all members of a given demographic because of the crimes of a minority of that demographic.
Enter the same bigots who played on fears of black men with guns to get the 90’s AWB and all previous gun control laws passed.
How sweet it would be to see Tipper get dragged out once more to howl and whine about how rap music and black men with guns were going to kill off the white suburban wholesomeness.
You mean like “tommy knocker” above?
“. . . bigots who played on fears of black men with guns to get the 90’s AWB and all previous gun control laws passed.”
Hmmmm, that’s quite an insight. So, let’s see. America’s culture was built on a couple of centuries of public policy summed-up in the phrase: “No guns for Negros!”. Then, beginning in the 20th Century: “No guns for Irishmen or Italian immigrants!” Our WASP ancestors never imagined that any of these gun-control laws would ever be applied to fine-upstanding members of decent society. Never mind that the explicit racial terminology had to be deleted from the statutes.
A wink and a nod; we know what the gun control statues meant. All we have to do is make the applicant appear in person in the sheriff’s office; he will take a look at his skin color and determine whether he is “suitable” to be issued a pistol permit.
Having engrained racial bigotry into our culture it’s now turning around and biting us in the ass.
The Antis are free to assert that there are some individuals in our society that can’t be trusted with guns. These, to whom they refer, are young black males and racist, Bible-clinging, red necks. Some members of the gun culture chime-in pointing out that there are – indeed – plenty of people that can’t be trusted with guns – i.e., violent criminals, hastening to point out that they are most often young black males.
Lot’s of voters hear the messages about how guns are dangerous in the wrong hands; and, they too put a “black face” on these “wrong hands”. Only the most vociferous bigots dare to use the words “black” and “violence” in the same sentence; but everyone understands the “code words” when guns are mentioned. Whenever a proposed gun-control is discussed, what image comes to mind? That of a Caucasian hoodlum? Or, a black kid with his pants hanging low on his hips?
To what extent is our discourse serving to help the Anti’s dig the grave for the RKBA?
Maybe the PotG would be better served by discourse that takes care to underscore that the 2A was made color-blind by the 14A. I.e., that one of the primary objectives of the 14A was to guarantee the RKBA to freedmen as well as all other members of the People.
To the extent that our society has a problem with violence, it is to be laid at the door of individuals who are violent entirely irrespective of their race, color, creed or national origin. We welcome all peaceable people to defend themselves and families with arms and condemn only those individuals who live violent lives irrespective of race.
I thought your writing was excellent, and I’d like to tack on: we aren’t fighting a war of statistics. Carrying what some commentators have mentioned here out to its fullest extent, perhaps it’s entirely possible that if we extradite all of America’s urban poor, we’d see a 70% drop in violent crime. But that’s a solution without justice.
We can’t, and won’t, suppress a category to control an individual.
Thank you for your kind remark on my analysis.
Your usage of the word “extradite” struck me as curious; it seemed to me that you had in mind some other word – perhaps expatriate.
The longer I puzzled over your usage of extradite the more I felt that there must be something to your point using the normal usage of this word. It finally dawned on me.
State police, DAs, judges and prisons are already over-committed handling the criminals who do not flee across State lines. As a consequence, they don’t enforce their own warrants! Suppose felonious criminal F commits his crime in the State W which issues a warrant. F flees to State D where he is detained (perhaps on a traffic stop.) State D’s officer finds State W’s warrant and contacts State W asking if they want their fugitive F back. W often responds that No, they don’t want F back. State W is satisfied that F is outside their jurisdiction, at large in any of the other 49 States where he can prey upon their citizens.
If our States like W would extradite their fugitives and prosecute them they would be (or should be) incarcerated such that they would not be preying on the citizens of other States.
Whether deliberately or inadvertently, you are correct.
The Democrats behave as-if they owned the Black vote. The Republicans behave as-if the price of buying a Black vote is beyond reach. As long as this situation persists there isn’t much volatility in voting to swing an election one-way or the-other.
If there were 1+ fissure in the Democrat ownership of the Black vote then that could be widened into a break large enough to create volatility in elections. I see two:
– RKBA
– school vouchers
Neither of these issues involves taxes. Liberalizing the RKBA does not require a tax increase (nor deficit spending) to be accomplished. Issuing vouchers to parents to “spend” at the school of their choice does not require a tax increase (deficit). Therefore, conservative/libertarian voters have no reason to oppose liberalization on these two issues. (They aren’t like welfare for the poor nor corporate welfare).
Arguably, conservatives/libertarians ought to be pushing for both these issues as a means of creating fissures in the Democrat ownership of the Black vote.
Middle-class blacks living in middle-class areas are already armed. They understand that making it is hard, but keeping it is harder.
If the same attitude seeps into less-affluent areas, it may come to pass that a positive gun culture will help to fix the negative culture that currently afflicts the black community.
We can hope.
A new and spreading trend is called – ” Put ‘EM In A Coffin ” – thugs , blm gangs , called “teens ” by the media, film themselves damaging stores and cars by jumping / body slaming anything around. Big laughs , sure. Plenty of video on you tube. Of course these are all isolated events……….
This is exciting. I believe that firearm ownership, a commitment to self-defense, and a commitment to our right to keep and bear arms is the “canary in the coal mind” or the “gateway drug” to a vibrant, healthy, responsible, respectful, dynamic, liberty minded populace.
edit: should be “canary in the coal mine“
“— Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.”
A few months back a commenter here expressed alarm that that guns were being increasingly ‘stigmatized’.
I disagreed with her and cited data at that time that suggested a major sea-change in attitudes towards guns was happening in the black community, and as Dean noted, for the better.
I can’t help but wonder how much of this attitude change as been inadvertently inspired by the President himself.
He has been remarkably ham-handed in regards to race relations and seems to be utterly oblivious to this.
From early in his presidency when he commented on law enforcement acting ‘stupidly’ in their dealing with Harvard professor Skip Gates and sending a White House delegate to the funeral of Ferguson, Missouri resident Mike Brown.
Guns aren’t being more stigmatized, but it’s not for the lack of trying by the media.
The real problem we have now is their attempt to convince the public gun crime is ‘skyrocketing’, and the solution is more onerous gun control.
We know it isn’t, but the media has their marching orders to keep repeating that lie lie until it’s believed to be the truth. And that’s starting to happen.
POTG, we had better get on the ball on exposing this ‘brainwashing’ before it bites us in the ass.
So, how do we get that message out?
The very future of the 2A is at stake here, people…
So how do we get the message out? As a firearms instructor I’m focusing on minority communities. Take a friend to the range or to a gun show. We all do have friends across minority boundaries, right.
“So how do we get the message out?”
Kenn, if you were responding to my comment, I wasn’t referring to any particular race, I was referring to the general public perception gun crime was rising, and how do we counter that.
My personal gun circle is integrated and one of our shooting locations is owned by a gay woman who wants to publicly broadcast to her redneck neighbors that she’s armed.
And yes, we do bring new people out when we burn ammo.
Yeah whatever. Very often the majority of folks buying guns/shooting range users I see are black. Not an issue where I live…now if these black folks would understand the azzwholes wanting to disarm them are overwhelmingly dumbocrats we might have some traction. The disconnect is MASSIVE. Happily the beautiful black woman by MY side does not have that problem…
It would behoove the NRA to launch an earnest, visible, and significant outreach program directed towards good people who live in not-so-good urban neighborhoods. It would benefit the NRA, gun owners at large, and the good people living in such neighborhoods.
Ken Blanchard has an infectious smile, and I think it’s a great choice to introduce his blog.
http://www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/letters/gun-rights-protect-all-races-not-just-a-few/article_e245d93a-6014-574e-878a-3eace2d6c31b.html
Klamath Falls Herald and News: Tuesday, January 27, 2009.
Letters To The Editor
Klamath Falls, Oregon
I have to ask. Were Black people actually asked? Or did people just assume based on random pollsters on tv out hustling with a microphone for some slanted opinions?
CCP =/= 2A but it’s a positive development. As long as the permit, license, or any qualifier is attached, exercise of the actual right to keep and bear arms is in great jeopardy. Generally, most of those I speak with who would be considered minorities express that they would rather exercise the right through permit-less, open and concealed carry combinations but are very concerned about getting roughed up or murdered by law enforcement due to the color of their skin.
2nd Amendment,1st Amendment, Can we say the “Bill of Rights”? Natural rights, God given rights? Good education NOT government brain washing drivel. It is time to think. There are two classes of people, government and slaves. You ask, who is the government? The rich people that buy the elections. No double standards. Thanks for your support and vote. Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.