We’re constantly bombarded with the narrative that white nationalism/supremacy is a significant and growing problem. Leaving aside the fact that these terms seem ill defined, we’re told it’s a crisis.
Just a thought though, if this narrative is true then why would we restrict access to firearms to those who might want to protect themselves from this plague. It seems like disarming the potential victims just makes them more vulnerable.
H/T to that horrible racist Larry Elder
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
If this is ain't a reference to the Tucker Carlson flap, it's a fine coincidence.
The left, being desperate and pathetic, needs to have those nasty white nationalists, supremacists and nazis be the focus of national attention so as to divert our gaze from other more pressing and likely problems, as well as to drum up fear that will lead to taking guns away from the law-abiding. As Carlson alluded, the total numbers of jerks aligned with the various white racist groups is probably relatively small. The SPLC, itself a hate group, claims there are around 1020 white nationalist groups in the US, but I can't seem to find anything regarding membership. That's rather significant. What if each of them have only a few hundred members at best? That's only a few hundred thousand people. The number of incidents attributed to them, then, isn't all that dramatic with that in mind. It doesn't compare with just gang-related killings that go on every weekend in every major city in America. So it might be a growing problem, but it's hardly a concern by comparison.
No, the vile racist Larry Elder tweeted something like this. It’s almost like the left actually wants more deaths from white supremacist groups by taking away the means for their victims to protect themselves.
I agree that the total number of these vermin is probably very small. I suspect that ANTIFA is probably a bigger potential problem since they seem to get away with their actions while the white supremacy folx don’t.
" It’s almost like the left actually wants more deaths from white supremacist groups by taking away the means for their victims to protect themselves. "
Oh man! You found us out! The secret liberal plot to killing off poor and oppressed people by collaborating with white nationalists has been discovered!
Pfft.
Do you even READ what you write (or pass on, in this case) before writing it? Do you recognize how nutty and evil it makes you seem, to trade in insane conspiracy theories?
The FBI is pointing out that white nationalists are a national security problem. (Although, to the wing nuts out there, no doubt, the FBI is just part of the greater Liberal/Media/Clinton conspiracy to rape babies and then abort their offspring after they've been born.)
Think, idiots. Look at the actual data and stop making up or passing on insane conspiracy theories.
Also, one final note: There are more ways to "protect ourselves" than merely arming everyone to the teeth. I know that the cowards and fear-mongers out there will tell you that everyone needs to have guns to survive in this world, but it just ain't necessarily so.
Stop listening to the conspiracy theorists and fear-mongers. Start using reason and data.
Or at the very least, stop passing on fear and conspiracies. It just makes you look like diaper-wetting idiots.
Dan,
You’re pretty damn gullible. Hypocritical, cowardly, inconsistent, and offensive as well. But definitely gullible.
First, note the words I actually used. Note the qualifier in the sentence.
Now, to reality.
Why would you want to prevent someone who is being threatened by “white supremacists” from availing themselves of any legal means of protecting themselves?
You do understand the fact that it’s not the responsibility of the police/government to protect people from crime, don’t you? It’s not even to prevent crime.
The reality is that there are millions of instances per year if people using firearms to protect themselves and their families. Why would you want to deny them the choice regarding the best way for them to protect themselves?
Virtually no one is suggesting that everyone “arm themselves to the teeth”, that’s just something you made up. Just like virtually no one is is saying that “everyone needs to have guns to survive in this world”, again something you made up.
What is being said is that people deserve the choice to exercise their 2nd amendment right to defend themselves and their families using the legal means if their choice.
But, by all means look at the data for defensive gun use, go ahead and look.
Then tell me how many of those folks you’d be ok with being injured or killed because folx like you want to remove their choice?
What’s the number?
You’re right, I shouldn’t paraphrase the tongue in cheek comments from racist, conspiracy theorists.
I’m sorry, I’ll try to avoid it.
Or maybe you should check out what this particular racist has to say on a variety of topics.
I’m going to point something out. We know for a fact people use firearms to prevent of defend themselves from crimes, it’s unarguable.
But, the numbers vary wildly, which raises the question of why that’s the case.
I’m not going to speculate about those reasons here, instead I’m going to ask a question.
If the use of guns in crimes is considered a negative use of guns, then it seems that using guns to deter crimes or protect the innocent would be a positive use of guns.
If that’s the case then wouldn’t we want accurate data in both sides of how guns are used in order to make the best and most well informed policy decisions possible?
Craig... First, note the words I actually used. Note the qualifier in the sentence.
First, note that I actually NOTED that you were referencing someone else's opinion. As I already noted... you were sharing someone else's conspiracy theory ("or pass on, in this case")
Now, to reality.
Why would you want to prevent someone who is being threatened by “white supremacists” from availing themselves of any legal means of protecting themselves?
Now to ACTUAL reality, rather than your fantasy world non-reality.
1. I have NOT said that anyone should not be able to avail themselves of legal means of protecting themselves. That is reality.
2. There are MANY ways to protect yourself, and it is primarily the cowardly and violent who thinks it all comes down to being "tough" (i.e., knowing kung fu, being muscled, etc) and being armed with weapons.
3. There is very little in the way of data that would suggest being armed makes you more safe.
4. On the contrary, guns may make you less safe.
Look at the actual data.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
Then tell me how many of those folks you’d be ok with being injured or killed because folx like you want to remove their choice?
What’s the number?
What the fuck does this even mean? Remove WHAT choice? Requiring more stringent background checks? Not allowing the general population to have unlimited access to any and all arms? We already do this (you can't buy TNT freely, nor bombs, not machine guns...)
Your questions and comments suggest, as always, a disconnect with reality.
As to your stupidly faux "sly" comments about your reference, I'm well aware that he's a black man, so don't embarrass yourself, further. I did not bring up racism in my response to you. Their certainly are conspiracy theorists out there, however... fear mongers who try to sell you on the unproven theory that THE WAY to self defense is to own guns. Again, the data either doesn't support that guess or the data is mixed on it.
t seems that using guns to deter crimes or protect the innocent would be a positive use of guns.
If that’s the case then wouldn’t we want accurate data in both sides of how guns are used in order to make the best and most well informed policy decisions possible?
You are making a presumption without proving the thesis. To the degree that one might deter a crime with a gun, it IS potentially positive. IF that were regularly, reliably the case.
Cont'd...
But look at last week's shootings. There WERE armed people around. There were armed cops around. They brought the shooter down within a minute. And yet, still, people were killed. Merely having guns around does not guarantee safety. At all.
Further, I heard from one person at last weekend's shootings who had a gun but didn't pull it out for fear that a cop would think that he's a shooter.
Consider: You're in a theater or out on a street and shots are fired and ten people in a crowd of 100 have guns and pull them out.
A. What are the odds that they will shoot one of the "heroes with guns," thinking that this must be the bad guy?
B. What are the odds that they are trained sufficiently to be able to hit the "bad guy with a gun" if they even see him?
C. Police and the military receive special training on how to handle active shooter incidents. The average gun owner has not. Even with the special training, mistakes are made. Do we REALLY want a bunch of wannabe heroes out there with guns shooting at people that they THINK might be a bad guy? What sort of mayhem would arise from this sort of proposal if implemented?
I know people who have guns - wannabe cop types who couldn't make it in the military or police force - who are toxic macho adrenalin junkies and NOT the sort of "defenders" I want to show up in case of an emergency.
My point remains: Stop listening to, supporting and passing on insane claims from conspiracy theorists. Start relying upon actual data and research.
1. No, you just want to limit people’s choices about what’s the best option for them in their specific circumstances.
2. Yes there are, and you feel qualified to make the choice for people you don’t know based on your preconceived notions about them.
3. Why yes, you’ve made the point I made in my last comment. Perhaps it would be helpful to actually have the most accurate information before depriving people of their choices.
4. The key word there is “may”, you’re attempting to prevent people from making choices about their lives and safety based on “may”. That doesn’t sound like a rational reason to deprive people of their legal choices.
You clearly don’t understand the difference between a question and a presumption. Not surprised given how reliant you are on categorizing people based on your presumption.
For example you’re presuming that Elder is a “conspiracy theorist” based on your presumptions.
You’ve thrown out a bunch of hypotheticals, that aren’t really relevant to an individual being able to choose how best to protect themselves and their families.
I do like how you allow your prejudices and presumptions to drive your responses without actually knowing the facts.
So, how many people are you willing to see injured or killed so you can impose your limits or their choices about what’s best for them?
As for your hypothetical, it doesn’t address what I’m asking about.
But, I’ll say this, you’ve ignored the vast majority of actual self defense uses of firearms in favor of a hypothetical that is slanted toward your opinion.
What about the mom home alone with her kids during a home invasion? Are you prepared to tell her that she shouldn’t be able to choose the best option for her?
These “gun wannabe” types you claim to know, how many of them have ever committed a crime with a gun? How many of them have ever threatened anyone with a gun? How many of them have engaged in unsafe handling of a firearm?
Re: I want to limit people's choices...
I don't believe I have advocated any specific regulations for changes. Having said that, I support what the vast majority of the US supports, more stringent Universal background checks. A majority of conservatives also support this.
A majority of the US also supports closing loopholes in background checks and a ban on assault-style weapons. I'm okay with that as well. The web primarily support, and perhaps the point you and I can agree on, is that we need to do research and go where the data leads.
I have to say that at least part of the issue here is your unwillingness to do anything but assume the most negative connotation to anything you don’t like.
This is a great example, you’ve chosen to react as if this is a serious, non satirical, post. Yes, there’s a degree of truth in that you would, if given the power, take actions that would deprive potential victims of “white supremacy” of options to defend themselves. Options that are currently legal and rational choices. You’d limit people’s ability to choose their ability to provide something that the government can’t provide.
I’m sorry that you are unable to dial back your presumptions and open your mind to the possibility that there are alternatives to your prejudgments.
You’re right, you don’t have the spine to actually make any specific regulations. Perhaps it’s the fact that you’ve admitted a degree of ignorance on the topic, perhaps it’s cowardice, I don’t know.
Yet, you then acknowledge that you support suggestions that would limit people’s ability to choose what they decide is the best opinion for their situation.
So, yes you’re supportive of limiting people’s ability to choose based on their specific situation, skills, and tolerance for risk.
Tell you what. Let's make this easy. You just continue to explain what I think. And then no, because it's always wrong and always stupid and always ask 9, everybody can just assume oh then doesn't think that. It'll save a lot of time. Same for what you say for most liberals.
Oh, and by the way, if that's supposed to be satire, you need to keep in mind that in order to be able to do satire effectively, you have to be a clever writer.
A question for you. If 90% of the us including a majority of Republicans support Universal background checks, would you go along with the suggestion from the majority of your fellow citizens?
How about strong regulations or a ban on assault-style weapons? Do you think of minority should decide for the majority on this topic?
Perhaps some confusion has arisen here. I’m not suggesting that people be required to use any one particular method of self defense. I’m also not advocating for removing the existing restrictions on the ownership of firearms. I’m not even suggesting that there might be additional measures that might help.
What I am suggesting is that people should be able to choose the means they feel comfortable with to defend themselves and their families, Those choices span quite a range, and are very personal.
Maybe this will eliminate the misrepresentations.
I’m so glad that , unlike you, I haven’t tried to tell you what you think. I just read what you wrote.
Without a specific definition of “universal background check”, it would be foolish of me to offer an opinion on such a vague talking point. If you’re asking if I’ll obey a UBC if it’s enacted into law, then of course.
Again, without a definition of “assault style weapons”, I’d be foolish to comment.
Would you support denying black families the ability to defend themselves against armed “white supremacists”, by whatever legal means they choose?
Re: people should be able to choose the means they feel comfortable with to defend themselves...
Everybody thinks this. Within limits. You do not think that people should be able to use hand grenades to defend themselves. You believe in limits. Am I right?
And we all believe the people have the option to defend themselves.
Both of those ideas are Universal.
1. We can defend ourselves.
2. Within limits.
The question then is not whether we can defend ourselves nor are there limits. The questions are
A. what are the limits?
B. and who decides?
I say, we the people should decide and not some small minority deciding for the rest of us. You?
Which is what I’m saying. You support additional restrictions on the ability of people to choose appropriate legal means to defend themselves.
A. I’ve covered this multiple times and places. You’ve never given any specifics.
B. Good question. Since we don’t have a democracy, the reality is that a minority will decide.
I suppose you know that a republic can also decide things with a majority opinion, right? A Republic does not mean governments by the minority.
When you have a government that is acting contrary to the will of 80 or 90% of the country, you no longer have a republic, you have a plutocracy or oligarchy. You have apartheid.
The people want changes in our gun laws and we will have them. Probably even your pervert in Chief and his little Toady henchman realize that, as well. They're going to bow to the will of the people on this point, at least. Or so it seems right now. Their NRA bosses may tell them otherwise.
My points remain.
1. Everyone agrees there are limits to the right to bear arms.
2. The question is who gets to decide. I say, We the People.
Since you don't answer questions directly it's hard to say, but you appear to think either that there should be no limits, IE, Anarchy or that the NRA or GOP Elites are the ones who get to decide.
"Within limits". This is an incredibly ambiguous suggestion that is meant to denote reasonable thinking, without it actually demonstrating any. How can "limits" be determined without knowing in advance how one might be at risk? Maybe...just maybe hand grenades might be the perfect weapon with which to defend one's self from armed attack from multiple assailants. Should I die because Dan wants to impose limits from the comfort of his old Kentucky home, having no knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances facing me?
It's been said many times before...because it's absolutely true...ALL weapons are "assault weapons" if they are used to assault someone with them. Even fully automatic weapons are worthy weapons of choice, but were banned for no intelligent reason. Dan would have the same take place to any weapon that has the appearance that suggests something aggressive or military grade, though it's all cosmetic.
In one of my several posts on reducing death by gun, I suggested that background checks should be focused on determining if an applicant is either a felon or mentally disturbed. If any database should be assembled for the purpose of gun safety, it should be that...felons and the insane. If your not on that list, you get to buy a gun with no other obstruction or infringement to possession...including FOID cards. There is no right for any governmental body to know I have a weapon if I'm sane and not a felon.
A. what are the limits? What I, as a law-abiding citizen seeking the best means to defend myself, say it is.
B. and who decides? See my answer to A.
“When you have a government that is acting contrary to the will of 80 or 90% of the country, you no longer have a republic, you have a plutocracy or oligarchy. You have apartheid. “
Is this a principle you hold and apply to every issue? What’s the magic percentage on an opinion poll that tips the scale for you? Are you really suggesting that failing to govern by opinion poll is wrong? What opinion polls are the sacred ones? Which opinion polls are so representative that they should be used to determine policy?
“Since I don’t answer questions..,”, what a joke. Once again the Dan double standard strikes.
1. I’ve answered this multiple times in multiple places. You’ve never answered this question. If you’re too cowardly to be specific, why should I do so again?
2. We don’t have a direct democracy. Our representatives decide laws. Is this government by opinion poll something you advocate for on every issue, or just the ones you agree with?
As I look through your comments the thread that runs through them is cowardice. You won’t answer question, take a position on any specific measures, or define your terms. Just whine, complain and make claims you can’t prove.
Nothing new here.
Art,
I agree that there are certain theoretical circumstances where a machine gun or a grenade might be effective in protecting one’s self. But those circumstances are so rare as to be a poor rationale for making law. Further, since many of these “mass shootings” (and regular shootings as well) are conducted with stolen firearms, I think it’s reasonable to restrict those sorts of weapons more strictly than others.
Since Dan won’t define his terms, I hesitate to jump to conclusions about what he means. I suspect he stays vague intentionally because he’s admitted his ignorance about this topic before or that it’s one more area where he doesn’t want to get pinned down to anything specific.
I completely agree that the first step in decreasing shootings is to enforce existing law consistently. Without that we don’t really know the actual extent of the problem.
While we may not agree on everything on this issue, we’ve both put out specific policy ideas that we support and believe would help.
Unfortunately all Dan has making false claims, vagueness, and refusing to define terms and provide specifics.
He’d rather go with “You believe there should be no limits”, or “anarchy”, or “everyone needs guns”, than specifics. He’d rather make unsupported false claims about the positions of others, than engage in a dialogue. As we’ve seen, he often takes the easier path.
My position is leave the inanimate objects alone until the real problem is addressed, so as not to infringe upon the rights of those not manifestations of the real problem. Thus, fully auto or explosives are no more problem or a threat in the hands of the law-abiding than any other weapon. So why attack them? Because of the same illogical reasoning that fouls the debate as it is...that there's something about the weapon that we should fear over the people who would abuse them. I'm not willing to deny anybody anything simply because some other people fear that which is being considered for denial. It's impotent for resolving the problem, as constant occurrences of mass shootings (and I include the every week instances of gang-related shootings) prove.
It's not the weapon of choice. It's NEVER the weapon of choice. It's ALWAYS the person using the weapon for evil where the focus should be.
So, while theoretical scenarios aren't proper rationale for determining legislation, so too are they improper for denying ownership to the law-abiding. We cannot know what weapons will be stolen for purposes of law-breaking, so how can we decide which to prohibit? If we prohibit all semi-auto weapons, like the AR15, other weapons will be stolen. The focus MUST be on two areas only: 1. denying the felon and insane, and 2. protection against their attempts to murder should #1 fail.
Post a Comment