This guy is brilliant, insane or both

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he is using satire to show how stupid the NAACP is for bringing such a silly lawsuit against him. Most people will not understand it. And, it gives us pro-gun people a black eye. Everyone will think we are racist. That isn't a good thing at all!

The guy is an idiot.

:banghead:
 
He should sell to black women - I am sure most of the crime is done by males. That would be a little more tricky.

I get his point, but our country is just way way to sensitive about race for this to go well.
 
I'd say he's brilliant and somewhat nutty. As to the race focus, I think he's not the culprit that put the magnifying glass on it. He's just doing a good job showing the emperor is a nudist.
 
This thing is ironic in so many ways.

Admittedly it is satire, but here is somebody AGREEING with the NAACP and some people think he is racist.
 
Admittedly it is satire, but here is somebody AGREEING with the NAACP and some people think he is racist.

Exactly. But apparently that slipped under some people's radar.
 
You got any relatives in Alaska?

Thanks Bob,

My preferred method of using coffee to wake up is the gradual absorption of the caffeine as I drink it. Not the pain of the hot liquid coming out my nose. :D

I think that it is a brilliant piece of satire. Unfortunately the people that it is directed at will only accept it at face value and not realize that it only mirrors their racist policies.

Greg
 
Lemme see if I got it right.

A small gunshot owner advocates not selling guns to black customers and he's called a racist by thread participants.

NAACP files a lawsuit which is dripping racism at each and every point and for some reason they ain't racist.

<Slaps forehead and shrugs shoulders a la a Frenchman>

Silly me! I was naively looking for consistency.

I'm over it now.

Hey thread members. Racism is racism. Don't call one action racist if you aren't willing to call the other action racist.

Racists scare me, regardless of the color.
 
KarlG, I'm not sure you understand the situation. John did NOT bring race into the debate. The "Reverend" Meeks is the one who did that, by holding protests outside Chicago-area gunstores and demanding that they stop selling guns to young black men. John is only agreeing (and only for the purposes of satire) with their twisted attitude. The idea is to make it clear to the rest of the world what we already know--Meeks and the NAACP are against guns and gun owners for purely political reasons having to do with their place in the Democrat coalition, and they'll scream, protest and hate us no matter what we do. Sell guns to black people? Why, you're a racist profiteering off the tragic violence of black neighborhoods. Refuse to sell guns to black people? Why, you're an evil racist who doesn't trust a black man to have a gun! What's wrong with you?

He did this a couple of months ago. . . . I'm surprised it's only getting out now. John has grasped the basic problem of Illinois, which is that, for all our blustering, downstate is irrelevant on the gun issue. Chicago is capable of dominating us for all time politically and determined to do it. The fight is in Chicago and the collar counties, because those places must be turned if we're to have any chance of a political resolution. So yes, he makes an effort to be outrageous. He and a group of supporters had themselves photographed flashing concealed weapons in Chicago. He urged people to wear fanny packs to the Taste of Chicago event to publicize that method of legal (though cumbersome and slow) carry. He gives away guns to Chicago residents, with preference given to stalking victims, homosexuals who've been bashed, and other minorities who fear racist attacks.

This is a lesson we still need to learn. You cannot get along with gun bigots. They just plain don't like you. You can't be reasonable and expect them to be reasonable in return, because they still won't like you. If you're fighting as hard as you can, they'll scream bloody murder. If you meekly agree to work with them to create a "compromise," they'll still scream bloody murder. Meeks and his buddies are in the business of calling people racists. It's their job. I'm not kidding about this, and if you haven't lived in Chicago's shadow you can't truly understand it. Anyway, they're going to do their job--paint you as a racist and shake you down to get what they want--regardless of what you do.
 
By the way, I worked around "Reverend" Meeks for a while at the Capitol (he's an Illinois Representative.) Guy's a gangster in an expensive suit, nothing more.
 
I have long considered what would happen if those who voted for anti-gun candidates were completely unable to purchase weapons.

This just takes it one step further.
 
Guys, chill please.

John is about as far from being a racist as he can get. He has been running fund raisers for a couple of African-Americans that Daley had arrested for carrying in Cook County.

His point is, as previously noted, to paint the NAACP into a corner, and he did it brilliantly, thank you.

They can't sue him for discrimination on one hand and sue the gun makers for a disproportionate number of African-American commuinity deaths at the same time with out looking stupid and money hungry to the public at large.

His proposal ranks right up there with Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" for dealing with the "Irish Problem" way back when.

All he's doing is giving the Reverend Meeks, (now trying to push Daley's latest gun grab through the state legislature) exactly what he asked for. Fewer guns being sold to his community. The truth of the matter is John is not a big gun dealer with asome kind of mega store. He has an FFL and does occasional transfers.

It's the principle of the thing that has to make the NAACP lawyers and leadership look foolish while giving them exactly what they wanted. The racist aspect was all their idea. Did you read anything about white kids being killed by guns in their lawsuits?

I'll watch the Chicago papers and see if it gets any kind of pick up.

As a matter of fact, I think I'll forward this to some of my contacts at WLS and a couple ofother Chicago radio stations and see if we can get this aired tonight.

Priceless and particularly pointed satire.

Don P.
 
Absolute genius. I really wish every gun shop and manufacturer would follow suit. Hoist on their own petard.

I grew up in the military in the 60's. I never encountered racism until I was in the service and at 18 I was shift chief and was called a racist because I told a young black man he had to come to work on time.

I don't remember encountering organized racism until I moved back to Montgomery AL in 1977. To be honest I am sick and tired of being called a racist simply because I'm white.

If you can prove that I have ever in any way subjugated anyone solely because of their race (not the color of their skin) then fine, call me a racist, otherwise shut up. The only people who shout racism at every opportunity are racists themselves. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.
 
. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.
What a racist metaphor! ;)

pax

No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that because he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of his own merit or efforts. -- Booker T. Washington
 
RACE?

:eek: a very nice african american woman the sets near me at work refered to jessie jackonson as a race pimp during a conversation that we were having, sounds like rev. meeks and maybe some of the above posters fit that title too?!?!:what:
 
These individuals may be pro-gun or anti-gun, but they are individuals that have been lumped together based on a physical atribute.
For the purposes of showing how ridiculous it is for the NAACP to do exactly that.

As for being concerned about all the people who 'miss the joke' thinking we're all a bunch of toothless racist hicks, too bad. If people miss the point, that's their problem. We can't constantly cater to the lowest common denominator...aka. 'the dumbing down of society'.

I think this tack is brilliant and should be fully explored.

Here's a professor taking the same concept and applying it to affirmative action:

==

My New Affirmative Action Grading Policy

By Mike S. Adams
University Professor
April 8, 2003

Dear UNC-Wilmington Students:

For years, my well-known opposition to affirmative action has been a source of great controversy across our campus, particularly among UNCW faculty. Many have assumed that my position on this topic has been a function of personal prejudice or ''insensitivity'' to the needs of various ''disenfranchised'' groups on campus and in society in general. In reality, my opposition to affirmative action has been based on personal experience.

When I first applied for a job as a university professor, a well-meaning department chair at Memphis State University (now the University of Memphis) told me that I had no chance of getting a job in his department because the only other finalist for the position was a black male. When I took a job at UNCW a month later, I hoped that I had found an environment devoid of such blatant racial discrimination. Unfortunately, my experiences here have proved otherwise. It is my constitutionally protected opinion that I have experienced direct pressure from the administration to engage in both racial and gender discrimination as a member of various university search committees.

Furthermore, I have seen examples of salary discrimination based on affirmative action. For example, one department at UNCW hired a black female as an assistant professor in 1999 before she had finalized her dissertation. Despite her inexperience, she was paid more than two tenured white male associate professors in her department who had, of course, finished their dissertations. One had been teaching at UNCW for five years, the other for seven years.

Despite all of this, I have decided to abandon my long-standing opposition to affirmative action after listening to the oral arguments in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case challenging admissions policies at the University of Michigan. While listening to these recorded arguments, I learned that public universities have a ''compelling interest in diversity'' which supersedes simplistic notions of reverse discrimination. Now, because my views have changed, I am forced to alter my classroom grading policies.

Students in my classes will continue to have their final grades based principally on test performance. Students will also continue to have a portion of their grade determined by class participation and/or a final paper depending on the class in which they are enrolled (please consult your course syllabus if you are one of my students).

After I compute final averages, I will then implement the new aspect of the grading process which is modeled after existing affirmative action policies at the university. Specifically, I will be computing a class average which I will then compare to the individual performance of all white males enrolled in my classes. All white males who exceed the class average will have points deducted and added to the final averages of women and minorities. A student need not have ever engaged in discrimination in order to have points deducted. Nor must a student have ever been a victim of discrimination in order to receive additional points.

I expect that my new policy will be well received by some, and poorly received by others. For those in the latter category, please contact Human Resources for further elaboration on the concept of affirmative action. You may also contact the Office of Campus Diversity for additional guidance.

I understand that many of you may consider my new position to be unprincipled. Please understand, however, that the university has long abandoned antiquated principles of ''fairness'' in favor of identity politics. Also understand that my job as a university professor is to prepare you for the real world.

After all, no one promised that life would always be fair.
 
This racist rhetoric stinks.

:confused:

From the article:

I have always advocated the way to reduce "black on black" gun violence was to arm the law abiding blacks by overturning Mayor Daley's gun ban and creating public awareness for the safety of the community provided by good citizens with guns. I am willing to admit now that I may have been wrong.

M'kay, where exactly is the burning cross in this guy's closet? I vote brillant. "Leadership" of the NAACP ilk need to keep their followers dependent in order to have a base of money. If their following gets guns and keeps their neighborhood safe the whole black activist thing is toast.

Let's be clear. To whatever degree that african-americans are "oppressed" in this country, the black activist movement wants to keep them there. A few good movie stars, legislators, and academics are desirable to give the "black community" something to strive after; you know kinda like the mega-lottery you'll never win. Achieving a society where black peoples were just viewed as normal Americans with normal problems and suburban day jobs would end movements like the NAACP. They must be exposed as the racists they are. They actively worsen the lot of their target, urban blacks, to ensure they can keep on keepin on with the "oppressed gig.

Absolutely brillant. I bet some bunch of liberal bed-wetters, young white Berkely types with some NAACP'ers thrown in, will jump on this guy with both feet before they realize 'xactly what kinda tar baby they is stompin' on.


Friend in Alaska? Too funny.

-NavyreadingcomprehensionisfundamentalJoe-

Edit: GRD, that is even funnier than the first article, another wonderful jab at state sponsored racism.
 
I am wondering if you understand my points. Can you see how this can reflect poorly on the pro-gun cause? Can you see how this has no regard for individuals as it groups people based on race? Can you see how this is racism?


I do, but don't agree with them, for the most part.

I do see how this can reflect poorly on RKBA. Truth is, most folks will take it literally and not get that it is satirical. Those in the opposition who do get it will make every effort to make people believe that it should be taken literally.

I do not see how this has no regard for individuals and is race-based. Perhaps, I should say that I do, but that it can't work unless it is because the argument it is based upon, promulgated by the NAACP, is based upon race. You can't point out the absurdity of their position without taking an equally absurd position yourself, 180 degrees from the one they expected.

Hell, this guy is doing what the NAACP has stated they want - no sales of guns to blacks. If anyone is responsible for disregarding the individual and making race the salient and determining factor, it is the NAACP.

As to this being racism, to whom are you refering? The writer or the NAACP? If the former, I say Bravo Sierra. If the later, I say "straight up."
 
Birch is no racist. I wrote this story below a couple months ago; it was published at the IL Leader. Birch and his Web site came to the defense of the protagonist in this story, Roderick Pritchett, a black man from Jamaica originally.


Legal Shootout Brewing in ‘Gun Free’ Zone

The evening of Roderick Pritchett’s descent into hell in Cook County, Illinois started with an ordinary shopping trip to Safeway for his mom last November 21st. The 25 year-old African/Jamaican-American frequently ran errands for her; he was the sole car owner in his family. On the way out of his south side Chicago apartment, he went back inside and grabbed his Taurus 9 mm pistol, unloaded and in its case as Chicago law requires, and tossed it in the passenger seat. Roderick liked to stop by the shooting range to practice his marksmanship once a week to stay sharp and keep his groupings tight.

In his wallet behind his driver’s license was his FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card) which he obtained before purchasing the gun in 2000. In accordance with the strict gun control laws enacted by Mayor Daley and the city legislature, Roderick kept the gun in his apartment and never carried it on his person. This seemed strange to him; the law essentially said that defending his property was more important than defending his life from the numerous predatory south side hoods. Pritchett however always followed the law, even the ones that defy common sense.

As he drove down South Ada St. toward the range, he noticed a police car tailing him. It was early evening and Roderick was a young black man with dreadlocks driving alone. In Chicago, that’s lights-and-siren time. Sure enough, Police Officer Edward Kos and Officer Rodolfo Camarillo pulled him over at 87th and Ada for a burned out taillight.

The officers approached and asked if he would mind if they searched his car. Pritchett didn’t object. He knew beyond a doubt that his 9 mm was 100 percent legal. He even had a copy of the Illinois gun laws in his case. When he handed over his driver’s license, he also gave them his FOID and volunteered that he had a legal firearm in the vehicle. He knew he had nothing to fear.

Unfortunately, his confidence was short-lived. The police ordered him to take a seat in the back of their black-and-white. “The officers began questioning me from the front seat of their squad car before they even let me know I was under arrest,†says Pritchett. “They giggled a couple of times before sarcastically asking me why I didn’t run. I was shocked speechless at their rude treatment of me.â€

Pritchett couldn’t understand why they were holding him. With all the crime in the city, why should they bother someone with a legal gun? He pleaded that he was only going to the range and that his gun was legal, but to no avail. Pritchett was arrested for violating 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons. One of the officers left the squad car and got behind the wheel of Pritchett’s station wagon to drive it to the station. Apparently, Officers Kos and Camarillo were either ignorant of the laws regarding the legal transportation of firearms, or chose to ignore them. In any case, Roderick Pritchett was on his way to 72 hours of misery that he would never forget.

Pritchett had his legal gun confiscated and was transported to the Cook County lockup and charged with a Class 4 Felony. Next, he endured the standard treatment of any run-of-the-mill accused felon within Chicago city limits – a quite thorough strip search that left no body orifice sacred, incarceration, long days and sleepless nights in a cramped, urine-stinking cell chockablock with accused rapists and thieves, and meals of stale bread and cold soup in the company of accused child molesters and slightly more palatable muggers. When his mother finally s****ed together the $500 bond to secure his release three days later, Pritchett had one more treat awaiting him, courtesy of the Chicago PD – a $700 fee to spring his station wagon from the impound lot. He begged the police before they impounded his car to let his girlfriend pick it up. The cops refused.

In the eyes of the police and those who make our laws, Pritchett deserved every minute of the humiliating ordeal he endured over the three miserable days of his imprisonment. He was a most grievous sinner and lawbreaker in their minds. He was a gun owner.

Mayor Daley, Cook County State Attorney Dick Devine, and other prominent city politicians have had it in for legal gun owners for years. Daley has stated on the record that if it were up to him, no one would have a gun. Both have been ardent backers of limiting gun purchases to one per month and closing the non-existent ‘gun show loophole.’ In a 1997 news conference at Chicago Police Headquarters, Daley, Devine and other gun control bureaucrats bragged of defeating proposed legislation that would have allowed the law-abiding to carry concealed firearms to protect themselves from criminals.

The police department follows their lead and makes the hassling of good sons like Pritchett a priority. Meanwhile, for all the beauty of our downtown’s incredible architecture, the breathtaking museums, the thriving nightlife, and the rich history of our city, Chicago continues to be overrun by violent crime and guns. Despite some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, murders are a twice-daily occurrence in Chicago, on average.

Other jurisdictions around the nation in the last decade have come to realize the fallacy of gun control. Thirty-two states now issue concealed-carry gun permits and on average violent crime has dropped 24 percent in those states*1, but Chicago, following the dubious example of Washington, D.C., continues with the old tried-and-failed method of legislating criminal behavior out of existence by restricting access to firearms. Even open-carry of a gun is banned here.

Our booming population of murderous thugs love the ‘gun-free’ atmosphere that such policies create. It leaves them with all the guns, and they use them. In 2001, their exhaustive, murderous efforts put 665 bodies on slabs in the morgue, which made Chicago the murder capital of the nation yet again. Moral cretins like these pay scant attention to the laws that prohibit blowing holes in other people, so naturally gun control laws are of no consequence to them whatsoever. To the thugs, Chicago is a new Wild West, where bullets can and do fly anyplace, anytime. Even better for the hoods, the law-abiding guy on the other side of the corral has no way to defend himself from hails of illicit gunfire. With only the lawbreakers armed and the law-abiding obeying gun laws, the piles of cold bodies stack up like bloody cordwood year after grim year. The more ‘sensible gun laws’ Mayor Daley and company pass, the larger the body counts.

Pritchett’s case, however, was not the typical, daily west side murder our good mayor is trying to prevent, and Pritchett was not the everyday violent thug. This was a straight arrow with a 100 percent legal gun obeying the law. Nonetheless, after having his rights violated, losing three days of work, and going $1,200 in the hole, his nightmare still wasn't over.

Soon after posting bond, Pritchett was arraigned on Nov. 27 at the Cook County Criminal Court. Cook County State Attorney Devine offered him a conditional discharge, if he would plead no contest and surrender his gun. Pritchett refused and pled not guilty. He wants his gun back and he wants justice. Now with a lawyer to represent him, Pritchett is ready to go the distance for what is right.

Says Pritchett, “I take this matter very personally and will not rest until this case is concluded in my favor. No matter how much I tried to kill the police with kindness and with the respect my mother instilled in me, they still managed to show no compassion at all for a law-abiding American. Now they have pissed me off and I’m ready to fight this to the end.â€

The fight is approaching its climax. Interestingly, the city has not charged Roderick with violating Chicago’s hand gun registration ordinance. They are going for the felony conviction in a trial set for March 20. Chicago is well on its way to topping the 600+ murder mark for the 36th consecutive year in 2003 *2, but Devine believes that spending the city’s time and taxpayer dollars proving that a law-abiding citizen does not have the right to own a gun is worth the fight.

For gun-grabbing pols, the Pritchett case presents a prime opportunity. If Devine can convict Roderick Pritchett for legally transporting a cased and unloaded firearm, that renders the laws to purchase and own firearms in Chicago essentially meaningless. If they can do that, Mayor Daley and State Attorney Devine can demonstrate once and for all that The Bill of Rights does not apply to the good law-abiding citizens of Chicago. To some that may seem an outrageous violation of Chicagoans’ God-given rights, but to others, making an example of Roderick Pritchett would be a fine way to top off their long, distinguished, and lucrative anti-gun/pro-criminal careers in city governance.

*Sources:

1. FBI Uniform Crime Reports

2. Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0302030137feb03,0,7129258.column?coll=chi-news-hed
 
'Prezackly. John comes off as a racist to some people because of this, and because he spoke out about the way noted Illinois racist weenie Matt Hale was railroaded and accused of conspiracy to murder a Federal judge (and, distasteful as it may be to defend Hale, he WAS railroaded purely because his racist beliefs are unpopular--even locals who make a habit of condemning everything Hale does are squirming about that case, and I include myself in that number.)

But what he's doing is not racist. I sent him a note suggesting he send out Oleg's KKK/NAACP image with his press releases from now on and put it on the website:

s_agreement.jpg
 
I heard a brief interview with Birch on a local radio station this morning on my drive to work. I think this is Brilliant.

And if he is going to be lumped into the "murderer" category by the NAACP for being part of a body that supplies guns to the black public, who then kill each other, OR be labeled a "racist" for refusing to sell to blacks, then if I were in his shoes, I'd rather be called a racist than a murderer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top