Thank you. You are spot on. Not just minorities but anyone living paycheck to paycheck would be the first to see the effects of further gun regulations. I was not aware of the roll of the NRA in advocating for minority rights for gun ownership. Out of curiosity, how many mass shooters have been NRA members? I know of none.
Many good points. I was not aware that the KKK advocated for gun control to prevent blacks from being able to defend themselves. Don Lemon shut down Vivek Ramaswamy when he pointed out the importance of gun ownership for former slaves after the civil war. To keep their hard won liberty they needed to be able to defend themselves against the white racists who were threatened by the freedom of the former slaves.
I once heard if guns are illegal, only criminals and cops will have them. I don’t want to live in that world.
It’s interesting when I use the argument that all the dictators took guns first, everyone always says “we’re a long way from Nazi Germany”. But so were they when it happened.
Ask Black voters whether they approve of gun control and the answer you get is overwhelmingly “yes”. They see the toll that easy gun availability takes in their communities. They know that the emotional harm that three hundred years of racial oppression have taken and realize on a very practical level that quick access to firearms can escalate a bitter argument into murder and the slow death of the perpetrator in prison. That is the reality.
The idiocy of gun control: since 1999, ~24.4 million semiautomatic magazine detachable rifle have come into circulation. That’s probably more than the F-150 truck, the most popular selling truck in America. When it comes to “mass shootings” however you define them maybe less than 60 have featured one of these rifles since 1999. That’s ~60 out of ~24.4 million
In framing this comment I decided to tap the mysterious Chat GPT (I’ve asked it/him/her whether it has plans to take over the world ala Skynet. He denied it.)
Chat GPT --
“The UK has gun control laws in place due to several factors. One of the main reasons is the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, where 16 children and their teacher were killed by a lone gunman. This led to public outcry and the introduction of stricter gun laws, including a ban on handguns. Additionally, in the UK, there is a general belief that firearms are not necessary for personal protection, and the police force is heavily armed to handle any potential threats.
In contrast, the US has a Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the right of citizens to bear arms. This has been interpreted by many as a right to own firearms for personal protection and other lawful purposes. Additionally, the US has a strong gun culture and history, with many Americans viewing guns as an important part of their identity and heritage.
Overall, the differences in gun control laws between the UK and the US can be attributed to various cultural, historical, and political factors.”
Lastly, the author proudly identifies herself as “Christian.” For the sake of argument, let me ask this -- WWJD?
So… Are you saying that if someone wants to have access to a fully-automatic machine gun with enough firepower to rip a person in half, then they should be allowed to have it? Because I’m pretty sure that rules against owning those kinds of weapons technically count as gun control, and I’m also positive that certain people in this country would be purchasing and using those weapons if there weren’t bans on them.
Wealth isn’t bullet proof. Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed the wealthy in their countries too - at least the ones that didn’t fight back and either wound up dead or exiled to Taiwan (or other countries) or the Gulag Archipelago
Wealth is not “bulletproof.” After all Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed even the wealthy. At least the ones who didn’t join a rebellion and fight back - and either end up dead, exiled, or in a gulag archipelago.
While not related to guns specifically, but related to the downfall of the wealthy after the communist takeover of China and during the cultural revolution read the old book by Nen Cheng “Life & Death in Shanghai “. Eye opening and unfortunately still relevant to current times and affairs.
The fact that the KKK was the first 'gun control' group is an excellent talking point. Every abhorrent shooting in a gun free zone is met with untimely calls for gun control (or in a recent case, chocolate chip ice cream) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All the while, the restrictive gun control did not prevent the attack, and just like the stereotypical gambling uncle "let's bet some more - next time we're sure to win"
Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot agree - gun control works!
Thank you. You are spot on. Not just minorities but anyone living paycheck to paycheck would be the first to see the effects of further gun regulations. I was not aware of the roll of the NRA in advocating for minority rights for gun ownership. Out of curiosity, how many mass shooters have been NRA members? I know of none.
Many good points. I was not aware that the KKK advocated for gun control to prevent blacks from being able to defend themselves. Don Lemon shut down Vivek Ramaswamy when he pointed out the importance of gun ownership for former slaves after the civil war. To keep their hard won liberty they needed to be able to defend themselves against the white racists who were threatened by the freedom of the former slaves.
I once heard if guns are illegal, only criminals and cops will have them. I don’t want to live in that world.
It’s interesting when I use the argument that all the dictators took guns first, everyone always says “we’re a long way from Nazi Germany”. But so were they when it happened.
You would be a goddam fool to vote for gun control, especially black people.
All Americans... Never Surrender!
Ask Black voters whether they approve of gun control and the answer you get is overwhelmingly “yes”. They see the toll that easy gun availability takes in their communities. They know that the emotional harm that three hundred years of racial oppression have taken and realize on a very practical level that quick access to firearms can escalate a bitter argument into murder and the slow death of the perpetrator in prison. That is the reality.
Another article full of false flags, bravo.
Well-written and well-argued article. Thank you for providing the history in addition to the logic.
The idiocy of gun control: since 1999, ~24.4 million semiautomatic magazine detachable rifle have come into circulation. That’s probably more than the F-150 truck, the most popular selling truck in America. When it comes to “mass shootings” however you define them maybe less than 60 have featured one of these rifles since 1999. That’s ~60 out of ~24.4 million
Thank you so much for this piece. It gives me hope
In framing this comment I decided to tap the mysterious Chat GPT (I’ve asked it/him/her whether it has plans to take over the world ala Skynet. He denied it.)
Chat GPT --
“The UK has gun control laws in place due to several factors. One of the main reasons is the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, where 16 children and their teacher were killed by a lone gunman. This led to public outcry and the introduction of stricter gun laws, including a ban on handguns. Additionally, in the UK, there is a general belief that firearms are not necessary for personal protection, and the police force is heavily armed to handle any potential threats.
In contrast, the US has a Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the right of citizens to bear arms. This has been interpreted by many as a right to own firearms for personal protection and other lawful purposes. Additionally, the US has a strong gun culture and history, with many Americans viewing guns as an important part of their identity and heritage.
Overall, the differences in gun control laws between the UK and the US can be attributed to various cultural, historical, and political factors.”
Lastly, the author proudly identifies herself as “Christian.” For the sake of argument, let me ask this -- WWJD?
“All gun control is oppressive”
So… Are you saying that if someone wants to have access to a fully-automatic machine gun with enough firepower to rip a person in half, then they should be allowed to have it? Because I’m pretty sure that rules against owning those kinds of weapons technically count as gun control, and I’m also positive that certain people in this country would be purchasing and using those weapons if there weren’t bans on them.
Wealth isn’t bullet proof. Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed the wealthy in their countries too - at least the ones that didn’t fight back and either wound up dead or exiled to Taiwan (or other countries) or the Gulag Archipelago
Wealth is not “bulletproof.” After all Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed even the wealthy. At least the ones who didn’t join a rebellion and fight back - and either end up dead, exiled, or in a gulag archipelago.
While not related to guns specifically, but related to the downfall of the wealthy after the communist takeover of China and during the cultural revolution read the old book by Nen Cheng “Life & Death in Shanghai “. Eye opening and unfortunately still relevant to current times and affairs.
The fact that the KKK was the first 'gun control' group is an excellent talking point. Every abhorrent shooting in a gun free zone is met with untimely calls for gun control (or in a recent case, chocolate chip ice cream) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All the while, the restrictive gun control did not prevent the attack, and just like the stereotypical gambling uncle "let's bet some more - next time we're sure to win"
I enjoyed your article.