Important Sunday NYT analysis article to use.

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by hso, Oct 16, 2014.

  1. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 3, 2003
    0 hrs east of TN

  2. Tom609

    Tom609 Member

    Oct 27, 2006
    NJ Pinelands
    I saw this and had to double check that I was on the NYT site. It would appear that there is a perceptible increase in articles like this by otherwise anti gun sources that point to the possibility of other causes for gun related crime. I think it's a positive sign, although it will be a long process to change perceptions. Nonetheless, it's a start in the right direction.
  3. Jim K

    Jim K Member.

    Dec 31, 2002
    So black males are involved, either as killers or victims, in the vast majority of gun murders. The approach now being taken by the anti-gun gang is to ban sales of guns to African-Americans. Of course the laws won't say that. They require training classes, fingerprinting, photographs, police permits, costly licenses, all with the deliberate intention of discouraging blacks from begging a white-controlled police force for the privilege of owning a gun. (Needless to say, blacks are seen by Liberals as having no rights, except the right to vote the way the white establishment orders.)

    I think it is necessary to point out to any black people who will listen that a white liberal establishment that forces them to be defenseless against crime (black or white) does not have their best interests at heart.

    whm1974 likes this.
  4. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Aug 14, 2011
    Hmm, we'd all thought the article to this effect a few months back was a fluke, and more a reflection of the banners licking their wounds than a true change in tactics (after losing their once in a lifetime opportunity, they said "well, it wouldn't made a difference so we didn't want it anyway" :( ), but I am certainly noticing that more and more people on the banner side are becoming aware that focusing on Assault-whatevers is extremely counter-productive for their disarmament agenda. Heck, most of us are only as opposed to the AWB as we are because it was so moronic on its face as to be insulting. If it actually did what it intended (banning mag-fed semi-autos), crime-prevention effectiveness or no, we would have considerably more respect for it than we do.

    I think what we're seeing is the classic Pincer Movement finally closing in on our opposition;
    -They historically have attacked pistols above all else, which made sense, seeing as that is the type of gun actually used for both crime and defense in almost all circumstances. This is why they had such enormous success in this area, to the point of nearly banning all unregistered pistols nationwide in '34. They were so successful, in fact, that they overreached considerably, passing numerous oppressive laws that were vulnerable to judicial review.
    -The Drug War-fueled crime wave spanning the 80's/90's sparked a growing awareness of the need for defensive arms, by that point pretty much banned entirely from all large urban centers and the hinterlands they controlled. This was when it seems many of the lawsuits being cited today as precedent were getting started through the system, exposing the multitude of illegal statutes unconstitutionally restricting the activities of pistol carriers.
    -Gun designs, marching inexorably forward like every other technology, had modernized to the point of often looking and operating like the current generation of military rifles that had been demonized in Vietnam and thereafter by anti-war protests and news coverage. Just as in Prohibition, very few crimes were committed with 'assault guns' on the whole, but when they did, they were blown all over the news, leading to perceptions of open military warfare in the crime-ridden urban black neighborhoods. Also as a result of the Drug War crime wave, the antis were compelled to do more to disarm the populace in the fervent hope of peace at last, to the point of directing their efforts wholeheartedly on guns that had nothing to do with the crimewave whatsoever; Assault Weapons. The AWB of '94 was the crowning moment of hubris for the antis, in which they convinced a great many of their political affiliates to risk themselves, only to reap an enormous backlash --all for the sake of poorly written, ineffective, and practically-unenforceable garbage legislation that ultimately wouldn't last more than ten years. This was the breech of trust between the antis and their political backers, which the NRA and other organizations have gleefully exploited to stymie them ever since.

    So, they thought they'd beaten us on pistols due to their legislative advances over the last century, but it was a hollow victory since it was built on such shaky legal ground we are now tearing through their statues almost as fast as gay marriage has (and with none of the attendant media/political support). They thought they'd stale-mated us on Assault Weapons, but their ban expired, and so did their chances of ever renewing it as it was (I have to guess they assumed a future congress would rubber stamp a permanent reauthorization, at the time), and the years in the interim have seen an absolute explosion of interest in the shooting sports, hobbies, and defense market areas, far beyond what any anti could have thought possible. The way to an assault weapon ban is now shut; there are far, far too many in circulation, and far, far, far too much interest in them for attack from pitiful Astroturf activism.

    So, they turn once more back toward pistols. But the pistol market has been even hotter than that for "assault" rifles. Concealed carry is in all US territories, on the way to being 'shall issue' in all of them, no less. Bans of all kinds are being struck down where challenged, and only being enacted on top of existing bans in very sympathetic areas.

    Gunnies have been oppressed for so long we scarcely hope to dream of what victory might look like, but it is increasingly apparent we will end up grinding these people between their hatred of black rifles and their fear of peaceful citizen carriers until there is nothing left. I'm not a Prohibition historian, but I would imagine something similar befell the Temperance movement once the amendment was passed. They kept fighting at different sides of the issue, losing, and striking out elsewhere, all while these defeats caused them to lose members until the whole thing collapsed. That movement culminated in a Constitutional Amendment for cryin' out loud, and today Tea totalers are mocked as relics of a bygone era; let the same be said for Bloomberg in 50 years (if he's not still running MAIG as a brain in a jar, somewhere :D)

    If we get pistol carry, pistol purchase, and pistol ownership without court battle possible, if not yet easy, in even a couple of the remaining big metro areas, we will have won. At that point, they won't be able to effectively resist or attack us on pistols or rifles, and the remaining effort will only get easier to mop up as we become more mainstream. I think if LA or NYC fall in this way, it will be the end of the 20th Century Gun Control movement, and guns will once more become embraced as Americana. At least until the next confluence of circumstances like the '60's, any way.


    Hardly 'new,' this is what non-segregation Jim Crow era laws were built out of; onerous or impossible requirements, conflicting legal Catch 22's, and selective enforcement against blacks. Fortunately for them, racism abated to the point that those terrible laws began being enforced generally, even against the descendants of the white population responsible for passing them (hopefully a cautionary tale for any American who would seek to impose laws restricting another), and that's when the wall began coming down.

    "Your 3/5ths of an opinion is duly noted. And disregarded" :D

  5. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Dec 15, 2008
    If you read between the lines, guns aren't the problem.
    whm1974 likes this.
  6. loose noose

    loose noose Member

    Feb 22, 2012
    Southern Nevada
    Guns never have been the problem, it is the few with guns that have no training, no moral conscious, that are the problem, I've got no idea, nor do our illustrious politicians, of how to solve this problem, however banning any weapon is definitely not the solution.
  7. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Dec 30, 2002
    Deep in the Ozarks
    It's culture. The Chicago Police released a study on homicides in Chicago. They found Blacks were the perpetrators in about 2/3s of the cases, Hispanics in about 1/3, and Whites in only about 3-4%.

    If the Black and Hispanic culture were like the White culture, the homicide rate would be about 90% lower in Chicago.

    You want to reduce violent crime? End the gangsta culture of violence.
    whm1974 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice