The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Does Gun Control Drive Down the Black Homicide Rate?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) puts forward a Democratic talking point:

To some extent.

I’m not aware of a good index of point-of-sale gun control by state. Instead, I’ll look at Biden’s share of the two party vote in 2020 as a measure of liberal sentiments in a state that probably tend to have some effect on gun control legislation at the state level. (Of course, this isn’t a perfect correlation: Rural Vermont, as Bernie Sanders admits, likes Democrats but also likes guns.

There is a moderate r = 0.46 correlation between the white homicide victimization rate in a state and Biden’s share of the vote:

I think it’s not impossible that whites, who tend to be law-abiding, might be influenced by gun control laws.

Of course, this is not a graph of murder perpetration, but of homicide victimization. For example, it’s likely not a coincidence that Mississippi whites are most likely due to die by homicide. In part, this is due to them being fairly ornery and well-armed. But it’s also due to Mississippi being the blackest of the 50 states and thus having the highest murder rate (outside of Washington DC, of course).

On the other hand, whites made up only 26% of homicide victims from 2018-2021. The Big Kahuna of homicides is blacks, and there’s not much correlation at all between Biden’s Share of the Vote and a state’s black homicide rate (r = 0.11):

Granted, Massachusetts, the most liberal of the 50 states, has a quite low black homicide rate. But is that due to brilliant gun control legislation? Or has Massachusetts had a high quality sort of black population going back past even W.E.B. Du Bois’s time? Or is my impression correct that no matter how liberal Massachusetts votes in presidential elections, they let hard-nosed Irish Catholics rule the streets, making Boston the only American city I’ve been to in my lifetime where blacks seems to be afraid of whites rather than vice-versa? I can recall going to downtown fireworks displays in 1986 in both Chicago, where whites were stepping into the gutter to let domineering blacks stroll down the sidewalk, and Boston, where the tiny number of blacks I saw seemed scared of the rowdy white crowd.

In contrast, the CDC treats hyper-liberal Washington DC as a state, and DC is second only to dystopian Missouri, home of the Ferguson Effect, in black homicide rate.

These graphs make a lot of sense when you think about them: a lot of whites are probably grateful that they live in a strict gun control state because they worry about who knows what they might have done in that one situation in which my significant other got me so irate.

In contrast, point-of-sale gun control legislation doesn’t have much effect on the black homicide rate.

What does drive down the black murder rate, as we’ve seen in northeastern nominally liberal big cities like New York, is point-of-use gun control: patting down guys who look like they might be be packing illegal handguns. But ever since the “racial reckoning” began on May 25, 2020, Democrats have been insisting that America’s biggest criminal justice problem is too much law and order among blacks.

Of course, the real Big Factor in a state’s total homicide rate is the black share of the state’s population:

A reader of my graph-laden column in last week’s Taki’s Magazine, “The Geography of Homicide,” points out that my graph showing an r = 0.82 correlation between states’ total homicide victimization rates and their black share of the population suggests that the American Indian share of the population also impacts the homicide rate in some Western states. Above is a redone version of the graph, following commenters’ suggestion to flip the axes around so that states with higher homicide rates show up higher on the graph.

For six of the seven states with at least Arizona’s 3.9% American Indian share of the population, the actual statewide homicide rate is higher than predicted by the state’s black share of the population. Doing a multiple linear regression including black share of the population and Native American share boosts the correlation coefficient from 0.819 to 0.863.

This shouldn’t be surprising because American Indian homicide victimization rates were 4.5 times that of whites in 2020. Native Americans have the lowest percentage of their homicide deaths that are due to gunfire, so I’m guessing a lot of these are manslaughters during a drunken brawl rather than, say, a drive-by shooting on Dutch commandos in Indianapolis.

That raises the question of what’s going on with American Indians, a group that has gotten very little attention during the Great Awokening.

Up through about 2007, American Indians and Hispanics had quite similar homicide victimization rates (to the extent that you can trust the CDC’s cause of death WONDER database when it comes to American Indians. There are a lot of people in the Western states who are mostly white but also kind of Native, and which box gets checked for each of them can be uncertain.) But then around the time of the Great Crash, homicide victimization rates for Latinos improved steadily until the Ferguson Effect got going in 2015. American Indians didn’t improve in the 2000s and the in the mid 2010s started to get worse, so a sizable gap opened up. (Not shown is 2021, in which Indians stabilized but Hispanics went up, narrowing the gap. I’m concerned about the progress made by Hispanics in recent years being lost due to the Floyd Effect.

Also of interest is that white and Asian homicide death rates were about the same until 2007, but lately a noticeable gap has opened.

I want to thank everybody who has contributed to my August fundraiser so far. For those who haven’t yet, here are ten ways for you to help me carry on:

First: Most banks now allow fee-free money transfers via Zelle.

Zelle is really a good system: easy to use and the fees are nonexistent.

If you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay/Zelle. Just tell WF SurePay/Zelle to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) Please note, there is no 2.9% fee like with Paypal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Zelle contributions are not tax deductible.

Second: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay/Zelle (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay/Zelle to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with Paypal or Google Wallet, so this is also good for large contributions.

Third, Zelle might work with other banks too. Here’s a Zelle link for CitiBank. And Bank of America.

Fourth: You can use Paypal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. Paypal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual. (Monthly is nice.)

Fifth: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617

I have no idea why somebody carefully hung this empty picture frame from a tree alongside the Fryman Canyon hiking trail, but I appreciate it, like I appreciate your support.

Sixth: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here.

Please don’t forget to click my name at the VDARE site so the money goes to me: first, click on “Earmark your donation,” then click on “Steve Sailer:”

This is not to say that you shouldn’t click on John’s fund too, but, please, make sure there’s a blue dot next to my name.

VDARE has been kiboshed from use of Paypal for being, I dunno, EVIL. But you can give via credit cards, Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin, check, money order, or stock.

Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Seventh: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Eight: You can send me Bitcoin. Bitcoin payments are not tax deductible.

Here’s my Bitcoin address:

1EkuvRNR86uJzpopquxdnmF23iA3vzdDuc

Here’s the OCR

Please let me know if this works, ideally by sending me Bitcoin. Or let me know what else you’d like to send me.

If you’re sending to a crypto address that belongs to another Coinbase user who has opted into Instant sends in their privacy settings, you can send your funds instantly to them with no transaction fees. This transaction will not be sent on chain, and is similar to sending to an email address.

Learn more about sending and receiving crypto.

Send off-chain funds

Mobile

  1. Tap at the bottom
  2. Tap Send
  3. Tap your selected asset and enter the amount of crypto you’d like to send
  4. Enter the Receiver’s crypto address or scan their crypto QR code to see if the address belongs to a Coinbase user

Computer

  1. Sign into Coinbase.com

  2. Click Send at the top right

  3. Click your selected asset and enter the amount of crypto you’d like to send

  4. Enter the Receiver’s crypto address or scan their crypto QR code to see if the address belongs to a Coinbase user

Obsolete: Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. But these don’t work anymore. I will try to fix them. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Ninth: I added Square [which is now Block] as a fundraising medium, although I’m vague on how it works. If you want to use Square, send me an email telling me how much to send you an invoice for. Or, if you know an easier way for us to use Square, please let me know.

Tenth: Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/SteveSailer

 
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What an amazing self-own, and he would likely smugly call you an evil raaaaaacist for pointing it out.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  2. Does anything the gummint does drive down black loserness?

    Blacks were doing much better when all they had was family, church, and work.

  3. These state (jurisdiction) graphs typically have DC as an outlier, to the extent that its inclusion significantly raises the calculated correlation coefficient. So the first graph in this series (White Homicide Rate vs. Biden’s Share of 2-Party Vote) is notable for the normalcy of the DC data point. (I can’t even locate it.)

    I guess this gets filed under “things I already know,” namely that DC’s whites are unexceptional when it comes to killings and other forms of mayhem.

    Edit: Except for 1/6, where they homicided a cop and four of their own.
    [/sarc]

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @ic1000


    that DC’s whites are unexceptional when it comes to killings and other forms of mayhem.
     
    That is true but only if you exclude the actions of the mostly White Congress and Executive Branch. Of course most of that homicide and mayhem occurs outside of US borders.

    Those mostly White gangsters are the best armed in the world and are not hesitant to use those weapons. The non White members of that gang are not any more pacifistic.
  4. … never relax.

  5. It may be a correlation between whites who don’t have a gun culture accepting laws for gun control in the first place. It would also correlate with (Outside the South) black immigration patterns in the 20th century as those places tended to be wealthier, have better social welfare programmes and be more industrialized.

    But the elephant in the room in terms of some states banning hand guns or rifles and some not is simply that there are (Outside very rare occasions and situations that are always well-known in advantage) no real border checks between states so it’s a trivial matter to smuggle guns into those states where they are illegal. Granted they will now also be more expensive, come with criminal risk by themselves and be more complicated to obtain. (You’ll need to know some gun runners or fences for them and non-criminal people don’t tend to like going to those kinds of people to buy illegal guns) So it isn’t true to say they don’t have any impact but it may not be sufficient.

    An interesting example that dovetails with immigration is that following the Balkan wars large numbers of Balkan people (Including a disproportionate number of Albanians, many taking advantage of being able to pretend they were Kosovar) began to successfully claim asylum and establish diaspora beach-heads in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden most prominently. (Take a look at the names on their national soccer teams these days, particularly Switzerland)

    The wars there left behind large amounts of weapons in private hands from informal ethnic militias. 20-30 years later there are still large amounts of functional weapons to be had (AKs never stop working) even including grenades. (Turns out Soviet grenades don’t stop working either) As the neocons in the US state department and their supporters and neoliberals in Europe demanded an expansion of the EU into the former Warsaw Pact countries, the borderless internal Schengen area began absorb the successor states of Yugoslavia and begin to border Serbia and Albania. This made it much easier and simpler to smuggle weapons since there was now just 1 or 2 borders to cross rather than half a dozen.

    The chief recipients of these weapons have been people clued-in to Albanian and Serbian ethnic diaspora networks. The guns used at the Bataclan massacre were bought in this way and transported all the way to Molenbeek in Brussels. This is also why Balkan immigrant-saturated Malmo in Sweden is the grenade attack capital of Europe. There is a concern that the huge amounts of weapons pouring without much scrutiny into Ukraine and given over to people in Ukraine who are likely doubtful of any victory might be selling them off to secure their own future. The buyers are again likely to be in the Balkans for the stated reasons and it stands to reason that the people who were buying guns from them before will buy these new products from them too and these weapons are far more dangerous including ground to air missiles that would easily down a commercial jet from a vantage outside an airport.

    This same dynamic is also one of the chief causes of the migrant crisis in the East. Steve and others have made mention before that the Hungarians are ‘saving’ Europe from the migrant crisis but infact if Hungary and the rest had never been admitted to the EU and subsequently Schengen, there would be no crisis as it would be too hard to get overland to the West. Another bonus would be if they were kept out of the EU and NATO that the crisis in Ukraine wouldn’t be happening and the economies of Europe wouldn’t be on the edge of an energy crisis that will kill off huge numbers of businesses and set back family formation for a whole generation.

    As always borders or the lack thereof, matter.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Altai

    Altai, your comments are always worth reading.

  6. Of course, this is not a graph of murder perpetration, but of homicide victimization.

    Why use two different terms when ostensibly referring to the same thing? Homicide and murder are not the same thing. Homicide can include murder but can also refer to justifiable homicide (self-defense), accidental death, and even capital punishment.

    By saying “homicide victimization” are you suggesting those killed by others didn’t need to be killed? We will never know what percentage of people found dead with a gunshot wound in the back of their head needed killing (street justice). Presumably in areas with bad dudes— high murder rates— your gonna naturally have a lot of bad dudes who need killing.

    There is the assumption that with a lax justice system (e.g., Soros prosecutors) there are more murders because a lot more bad dude murderers are released on no bail or not charged or not convicted or not imprisoned. But it could be that because more of those bad dudes are out and about more of them need killing?

    Maybe instead of higher murder rates it’s simply a case of higher incidence of murder intentionality which leads to necessary killing? And what percentage of convicted murderers in prison are there for illegal but necessary killing?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @What’s the frequency, Dan Rather


    But it could be that because more of those bad dudes are out and about more of them need killing?
     
    Indeed, plenty of black people took out black people who needed killing, or both of them did. Same with all races, to a much lesser extent. Though the 2nd Amendment was not about self-defense, that is every reason in the world to oppose ALL gun-control laws in America.

    You made very good points with all of this comment - does "homicide" include self-defense (pretty sure) or suicide (maybe not, but then you can't always tell)? Capital punishment would be insignificant either way.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @What’s the frequency, Dan Rather

    I nearly forgot to tell you - Nice Handle!

    Here ya' go (with REM, of course): What's the Frequency, Kenneth?!

  7. What are the Y axis units on the white graph?

    Now, what made you use red for the high Indian pop states? Was it your typewriter ribbon?

    I’m going with my theory that unruly slaves in the East were sold to the later plantations in the Mississippi delta after the Tidewater tobacco land became exhausted.

  8. Unfortunately, criminals do carry guns across state lines. So Chicago’s murder rate may be influenced by the proximity of gun-friendly Indiana. I know that’s a lefty talking point but hey even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @International Jew


    Unfortunately, criminals do carry guns across state lines. So Chicago’s murder rate may be influenced by the proximity of gun-friendly Indiana.
     
    When it comes to guns, Illinois is "an oasis of totalitarianism in a desert of freedom" to repurpose Iowahawk on colleges.

    You've got to go more than two states away to find ones that are anywhere what it's like. Chicago's ban on handgun (and sometimes?? long gun) ownership along with the state's no concealed carry except for the ruling trash regimes were struck down by the local Federal courts after MacDonald, outside of D.C. the only place that decision and Heller changed the facts on the ground for firearms. And they didn't take the Massive Resistance posture states like New York are doing after Bruen, it's accepted by the Chicago authorities for legally armed citizens to shoot criminals. The city is reduced to trying to keep gun stores and ranges outside of it.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  9. @Altai
    It may be a correlation between whites who don't have a gun culture accepting laws for gun control in the first place. It would also correlate with (Outside the South) black immigration patterns in the 20th century as those places tended to be wealthier, have better social welfare programmes and be more industrialized.

    But the elephant in the room in terms of some states banning hand guns or rifles and some not is simply that there are (Outside very rare occasions and situations that are always well-known in advantage) no real border checks between states so it's a trivial matter to smuggle guns into those states where they are illegal. Granted they will now also be more expensive, come with criminal risk by themselves and be more complicated to obtain. (You'll need to know some gun runners or fences for them and non-criminal people don't tend to like going to those kinds of people to buy illegal guns) So it isn't true to say they don't have any impact but it may not be sufficient.

    An interesting example that dovetails with immigration is that following the Balkan wars large numbers of Balkan people (Including a disproportionate number of Albanians, many taking advantage of being able to pretend they were Kosovar) began to successfully claim asylum and establish diaspora beach-heads in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden most prominently. (Take a look at the names on their national soccer teams these days, particularly Switzerland)

    The wars there left behind large amounts of weapons in private hands from informal ethnic militias. 20-30 years later there are still large amounts of functional weapons to be had (AKs never stop working) even including grenades. (Turns out Soviet grenades don't stop working either) As the neocons in the US state department and their supporters and neoliberals in Europe demanded an expansion of the EU into the former Warsaw Pact countries, the borderless internal Schengen area began absorb the successor states of Yugoslavia and begin to border Serbia and Albania. This made it much easier and simpler to smuggle weapons since there was now just 1 or 2 borders to cross rather than half a dozen.

    The chief recipients of these weapons have been people clued-in to Albanian and Serbian ethnic diaspora networks. The guns used at the Bataclan massacre were bought in this way and transported all the way to Molenbeek in Brussels. This is also why Balkan immigrant-saturated Malmo in Sweden is the grenade attack capital of Europe. There is a concern that the huge amounts of weapons pouring without much scrutiny into Ukraine and given over to people in Ukraine who are likely doubtful of any victory might be selling them off to secure their own future. The buyers are again likely to be in the Balkans for the stated reasons and it stands to reason that the people who were buying guns from them before will buy these new products from them too and these weapons are far more dangerous including ground to air missiles that would easily down a commercial jet from a vantage outside an airport.

    This same dynamic is also one of the chief causes of the migrant crisis in the East. Steve and others have made mention before that the Hungarians are 'saving' Europe from the migrant crisis but infact if Hungary and the rest had never been admitted to the EU and subsequently Schengen, there would be no crisis as it would be too hard to get overland to the West. Another bonus would be if they were kept out of the EU and NATO that the crisis in Ukraine wouldn't be happening and the economies of Europe wouldn't be on the edge of an energy crisis that will kill off huge numbers of businesses and set back family formation for a whole generation.

    As always borders or the lack thereof, matter.

    Replies: @ic1000

    Altai, your comments are always worth reading.

  10. The Indy Star is reporting that the shooter (Shamar Duncan) and his friends were actively looking to start a fight and retaliated after one of the Dutch soldiers had enough and punched one of the antagonists. Obviously the racial dynamics of this are pretty obvious but no doubt the national media will do its best to ignore that and shrug it off as one of those things.

  11. I understand that the reason to use States as the independent variable is because most gun laws are State-wide. However, we all know, and I’m sure you can show, that gun murder rates go up with the number of black thugs in the inner cities, and often suburbs now too. You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).

    I think it’s not impossible that whites, who tend to be law-abiding, might be influenced by gun control laws.

    Being law-abiding*, they might also be influenced more by laws against murder too. I think this business about ornery White men is mostly crap. This is no longer the time of the bootleggers and the Revenuers, Steve.

    This Chris Murphy may be idiotic enough to miss it, but I think he’s just being duplicitous, leaving out the MAIN FACTOR, the population of young/middle-aged black men.

    .

    * Law abiding being correlated with a better temperament, perhaps?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Achmed E. Newman


    NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).
     
    Is that really true though? NYC is a bad example because it actually has a low murder rate for its size (going up lately but still low relative to other big cities). Chicago or Philly or DC would have been a better example. Is NYC's homicide rate lower in part due to its exceptionally strict gun control laws? I dunno.


    BTW, NY is going ahead with its defiant new "sensitive area" gun control law. The Supreme Ct. stated in Heller that it was OK to ban guns in certain "sensitive areas" such as courtrooms and schools, so the NY legislature went to town and declared a really long laundry list of places as "sensitive areas" including the public streets of Times Square and every private business that does not post a "Guns Permitted" sign. If they had stretched the definition of "sensitive area" just a little bit (maybe add hospitals to schools and courtrooms) then they might have gotten away with it but the whole point of the law was to be smacked down again by the Supreme Ct. so that the Dems would have a talking point.

    https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220830195932-time-square-gun-free-zone-exlarge-169.jpg
    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Achmed E. Newman


    You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).
     
    NYC is now the sole outlier in banning mere legal gun ownership to all but a few of the anointed. After the lists were published by the press, I counted and ~60K each for handguns and long guns.

    While this isn't the sort of data our host is looking for, let me describe off the top of my head the eight remaining modern day slave states, judged by may or no issue concealed carry:

    No issue concealed carry states: Hawaii, Maryland effectively so, and New Jersey. Add San Francisco as a city, much more than NYC with only 1-3 licenses outstanding at any one time.

    Massachusetts: all gun ownership is now may issue, handguns were for a very long time. Along with CA and NY done by city or country so less populated ones are sometimes a lot better. There's a legally dangerous song and dance done with which licenses also allow concealed carry.

    New York handgun ownership is may issue (see John Derbyshire's experience). New Jersey is so insanely dangerous, ownership of guns and ammo is illegal except for specific exceptions so I'm not sure, but ownership has lots of roadblocks, and may be may issue especially for handguns.

    California is increasingly restrictive and now maybe going crazy after Bruen like NY on concealed carry as a whole. But ownership is shall issue, and this is true of other states I'm not going into details of like Illinois.

    Delaware and especially Rhode Island are too small for me to really care about, but they're various degrees of bad.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Known Fact
    @Achmed E. Newman

    State-by-state numbers are certainly confounded by the urban/rural disparity. I'm only a couple of hours from NYC but my county is just 2.8 percent black and as a result is generally safe. (Plenty of illegals but thus far they've blended in pretty quietly, just some drugs and prostitution)

    Also frustrating when trying to do any kind of research is how the White category often gets Hispanics lumped right in.

  12. The first graph says that Illinois (IL) has a White Homicide Rate of 200%. What does this mean? What number, divided by what other number, is 200%?

  13. These graphs make a lot of sense when you think about them: a lot of whites are probably grateful that they live in a strict gun control state because they worry about who knows what they might have done in that one situation in which my significant other got me so irate

    Eh, is that a personal anecdote, or…

    Does Gun Control Drive Down the Black Homicide Rate?

    Anti-2A cucks Reg Cæsar and Jack D sure hope so! They’re really scared of Blacks with guns.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I don't think of myself as being anti-2A but I'm not some sort of gun fetishist either. One of the problems with modern America is that everyone tends toward extremes - either no abortion at all or completely free abortion. Either guns everywhere or guns nowhere. The middle ground seems to be disappearing from our society and if you try to occupy it you will be called a "cuck".

    I'm pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn't have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result. If you had asked them they would looked at you as if you were nuts - don't you know that blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes? But now we have the 14th on top of the 2nd and this is the unanticipated result - pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have actually wanted.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @J.Ross

  14. @International Jew
    Unfortunately, criminals do carry guns across state lines. So Chicago's murder rate may be influenced by the proximity of gun-friendly Indiana. I know that's a lefty talking point but hey even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Unfortunately, criminals do carry guns across state lines. So Chicago’s murder rate may be influenced by the proximity of gun-friendly Indiana.

    When it comes to guns, Illinois is “an oasis of totalitarianism in a desert of freedom” to repurpose Iowahawk on colleges.

    You’ve got to go more than two states away to find ones that are anywhere what it’s like. Chicago’s ban on handgun (and sometimes?? long gun) ownership along with the state’s no concealed carry except for the ruling trash regimes were struck down by the local Federal courts after MacDonald, outside of D.C. the only place that decision and Heller changed the facts on the ground for firearms. And they didn’t take the Massive Resistance posture states like New York are doing after Bruen, it’s accepted by the Chicago authorities for legally armed citizens to shoot criminals. The city is reduced to trying to keep gun stores and ranges outside of it.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @That Would Be Telling


    And they didn’t take the Massive Resistance posture states like New York are doing after Bruen
     
    2A people need a new paradigm for Cosmopolitan gun controller states where the gun controller is in charge in all areas of messaging. It's the age of the internet, and rolling LED billboards; where is the anti-TPTB messenging? Where is the Bloomberg-is-defended-by-guns-and-so-is-the-Mayor cries? Only cops-politicians-TPTB are allowed guns but you are not. Be stupid, support billionaire gun control.

    All sorts of pro-gun messaging could be out there but isn't.

    In short, where is the gun rights messaging for people who know something is wrong in that the cosmopolitans have destroyed their RKBA but haven't the vaguest clue that they can do something about it?

    Look at this Ukrainian ad for Resistance Operating Concept that encapsulates in one minute what a citizen can be doing to resist an invasion by a superior military.

    https://twitter.com/United24media/status/1563456528539340800

    Gun advocates NEED to do similar things in this age of the smartphone and Amazon server information propagation.
  15. @What’s the frequency, Dan Rather

    Of course, this is not a graph of murder perpetration, but of homicide victimization.
     
    Why use two different terms when ostensibly referring to the same thing? Homicide and murder are not the same thing. Homicide can include murder but can also refer to justifiable homicide (self-defense), accidental death, and even capital punishment.

    By saying “homicide victimization” are you suggesting those killed by others didn’t need to be killed? We will never know what percentage of people found dead with a gunshot wound in the back of their head needed killing (street justice). Presumably in areas with bad dudes— high murder rates— your gonna naturally have a lot of bad dudes who need killing.

    There is the assumption that with a lax justice system (e.g., Soros prosecutors) there are more murders because a lot more bad dude murderers are released on no bail or not charged or not convicted or not imprisoned. But it could be that because more of those bad dudes are out and about more of them need killing?

    Maybe instead of higher murder rates it’s simply a case of higher incidence of murder intentionality which leads to necessary killing? And what percentage of convicted murderers in prison are there for illegal but necessary killing?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman

    But it could be that because more of those bad dudes are out and about more of them need killing?

    Indeed, plenty of black people took out black people who needed killing, or both of them did. Same with all races, to a much lesser extent. Though the 2nd Amendment was not about self-defense, that is every reason in the world to oppose ALL gun-control laws in America.

    You made very good points with all of this comment – does “homicide” include self-defense (pretty sure) or suicide (maybe not, but then you can’t always tell)? Capital punishment would be insignificant either way.

  16. @Achmed E. Newman
    I understand that the reason to use States as the independent variable is because most gun laws are State-wide. However, we all know, and I'm sure you can show, that gun murder rates go up with the number of black thugs in the inner cities, and often suburbs now too. You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC's and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don't do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).

    I think it’s not impossible that whites, who tend to be law-abiding, might be influenced by gun control laws.
     
    Being law-abiding*, they might also be influenced more by laws against murder too. I think this business about ornery White men is mostly crap. This is no longer the time of the bootleggers and the Revenuers, Steve.

    This Chris Murphy may be idiotic enough to miss it, but I think he's just being duplicitous, leaving out the MAIN FACTOR, the population of young/middle-aged black men.


    .


    * Law abiding being correlated with a better temperament, perhaps?

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling, @Known Fact

    NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).

    Is that really true though? NYC is a bad example because it actually has a low murder rate for its size (going up lately but still low relative to other big cities). Chicago or Philly or DC would have been a better example. Is NYC’s homicide rate lower in part due to its exceptionally strict gun control laws? I dunno.

    BTW, NY is going ahead with its defiant new “sensitive area” gun control law. The Supreme Ct. stated in Heller that it was OK to ban guns in certain “sensitive areas” such as courtrooms and schools, so the NY legislature went to town and declared a really long laundry list of places as “sensitive areas” including the public streets of Times Square and every private business that does not post a “Guns Permitted” sign. If they had stretched the definition of “sensitive area” just a little bit (maybe add hospitals to schools and courtrooms) then they might have gotten away with it but the whole point of the law was to be smacked down again by the Supreme Ct. so that the Dems would have a talking point.

  17. @Achmed E. Newman
    I understand that the reason to use States as the independent variable is because most gun laws are State-wide. However, we all know, and I'm sure you can show, that gun murder rates go up with the number of black thugs in the inner cities, and often suburbs now too. You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC's and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don't do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).

    I think it’s not impossible that whites, who tend to be law-abiding, might be influenced by gun control laws.
     
    Being law-abiding*, they might also be influenced more by laws against murder too. I think this business about ornery White men is mostly crap. This is no longer the time of the bootleggers and the Revenuers, Steve.

    This Chris Murphy may be idiotic enough to miss it, but I think he's just being duplicitous, leaving out the MAIN FACTOR, the population of young/middle-aged black men.


    .


    * Law abiding being correlated with a better temperament, perhaps?

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling, @Known Fact

    You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).

    NYC is now the sole outlier in banning mere legal gun ownership to all but a few of the anointed. After the lists were published by the press, I counted and ~60K each for handguns and long guns.

    While this isn’t the sort of data our host is looking for, let me describe off the top of my head the eight remaining modern day slave states, judged by may or no issue concealed carry:

    No issue concealed carry states: Hawaii, Maryland effectively so, and New Jersey. Add San Francisco as a city, much more than NYC with only 1-3 licenses outstanding at any one time.

    Massachusetts: all gun ownership is now may issue, handguns were for a very long time. Along with CA and NY done by city or country so less populated ones are sometimes a lot better. There’s a legally dangerous song and dance done with which licenses also allow concealed carry.

    New York handgun ownership is may issue (see John Derbyshire’s experience). New Jersey is so insanely dangerous, ownership of guns and ammo is illegal except for specific exceptions so I’m not sure, but ownership has lots of roadblocks, and may be may issue especially for handguns.

    California is increasingly restrictive and now maybe going crazy after Bruen like NY on concealed carry as a whole. But ownership is shall issue, and this is true of other states I’m not going into details of like Illinois.

    Delaware and especially Rhode Island are too small for me to really care about, but they’re various degrees of bad.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @That Would Be Telling

    California is increasingly restrictive and now maybe going crazy after Bruen like NY on concealed carry as a whole. But ownership is shall issue, and this is true of other states I’m not going into details of like Illinois.

    LA county is just as restrictive as NYC.

    I understand the concern in NYC. In a densely populated area there is a much higher risk of shooting a bystander. I certainly don't support their policies but I would be against constitutional carry in that area. Most New Yorkers are boneheaded liberals and probably should not be packing on the subway unless they have gone through rigorous training.

    LA is all about politics as the liberals have consolidated their power and without any opposition. The California GOP has never really cared about guns and doesn't push back against the state. I believe a self-selection process has occurred whereby the Whites that would be gun advocates have already moved out of the state. Live in Nevada or Arizona and shoot whatever you want. The remaining California Republicans are really just interested in tax cuts and playing golf. I loathe the California GOP. They would probably be fine with keeping the existing laws in exchange for a tax cut. The leaders are spoiled blue bloods that most likely don't want the plebes to own handguns.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @That Would Be Telling

    This map only goes through '17. Things have gotten even greener since then. (Green = Good)

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/CCC.gif

    Yes, I am familiar with John Derbyshire's travails. After a few years he's finally got his gun(s) back.

  18. @What’s the frequency, Dan Rather

    Of course, this is not a graph of murder perpetration, but of homicide victimization.
     
    Why use two different terms when ostensibly referring to the same thing? Homicide and murder are not the same thing. Homicide can include murder but can also refer to justifiable homicide (self-defense), accidental death, and even capital punishment.

    By saying “homicide victimization” are you suggesting those killed by others didn’t need to be killed? We will never know what percentage of people found dead with a gunshot wound in the back of their head needed killing (street justice). Presumably in areas with bad dudes— high murder rates— your gonna naturally have a lot of bad dudes who need killing.

    There is the assumption that with a lax justice system (e.g., Soros prosecutors) there are more murders because a lot more bad dude murderers are released on no bail or not charged or not convicted or not imprisoned. But it could be that because more of those bad dudes are out and about more of them need killing?

    Maybe instead of higher murder rates it’s simply a case of higher incidence of murder intentionality which leads to necessary killing? And what percentage of convicted murderers in prison are there for illegal but necessary killing?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman

    I nearly forgot to tell you – Nice Handle!

    Here ya’ go (with REM, of course): What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?!

    • LOL: Jim Christian
  19. Is there a correlation between place where gun was sold/bought (ZIP) and homicide/suicide statistics? i.e. Do guns generally kill locally or travel much? A State, especially large ones like CA and NY, is too amorphous to do any locality analysis.

  20. Come to think of it, Boston is one city that you don’t see in the headlines much — as far as shootings, riots or the dangerous homeless. They have a young female mayor who sounds kind of woke, so we’ll see. Daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, Harvard Law School grad.

    Pittsburgh also still seems fairly calm but I see the mayor is having anti-violence cookouts with “the community.” And speaking of useless gestures, Mayor Adams’ next desperate anti-crime move is declaring Times Square a “gun-free zone.”

    NYPD meanwhile is supposedly getting a little tougher on fare-beaters, public urination etc and lefty activists don’t like it

  21. I have no doubt that Black homicide rates are tied to private sales.

    How much is the question and that is open to speculation. If we decreased their gun supply would “heat of the moment” type homicides decrease? Would there be a corresponding increase in knife homicides? I believe there would at least be fewer “spray and pray” shootings but of course the risk of any such discussion would only encourage liberals to push gun control on everyone.

    Conservatives are certainly wrong to make private sales an issue. The NRA doesn’t want to face the reality of race any more than the left. Both sides want to pretend that race isn’t a factor while knowing it is the strongest factor.

    Allowing Blacks to buy handguns in parking lots to take back to Chicago or NYC doesn’t make sense.

    Yes I realize they are breaking laws by taking them back. But amoral Whites in private sales states shouldn’t be allowed to play dumb and sell to anyone.

    That is what happens and the pro-gun side doesn’t like talking about it.

    I am pro-gun but also unafraid to question the NRA and conservative intellectual dishonesty. The founding fathers never would have supported selling Blacks 9mm Glocks with 30 round magazines in a parking lot. They in fact would think modern Whites are f-cking stupid for deluding themselves about race. They never believed that Africans were merely Europeans with a year round tan.

  22. @Achmed E. Newman
    I understand that the reason to use States as the independent variable is because most gun laws are State-wide. However, we all know, and I'm sure you can show, that gun murder rates go up with the number of black thugs in the inner cities, and often suburbs now too. You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC's and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don't do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).

    I think it’s not impossible that whites, who tend to be law-abiding, might be influenced by gun control laws.
     
    Being law-abiding*, they might also be influenced more by laws against murder too. I think this business about ornery White men is mostly crap. This is no longer the time of the bootleggers and the Revenuers, Steve.

    This Chris Murphy may be idiotic enough to miss it, but I think he's just being duplicitous, leaving out the MAIN FACTOR, the population of young/middle-aged black men.


    .


    * Law abiding being correlated with a better temperament, perhaps?

    Replies: @Jack D, @That Would Be Telling, @Known Fact

    State-by-state numbers are certainly confounded by the urban/rural disparity. I’m only a couple of hours from NYC but my county is just 2.8 percent black and as a result is generally safe. (Plenty of illegals but thus far they’ve blended in pretty quietly, just some drugs and prostitution)

    Also frustrating when trying to do any kind of research is how the White category often gets Hispanics lumped right in.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  23. @That Would Be Telling
    @Achmed E. Newman


    You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).
     
    NYC is now the sole outlier in banning mere legal gun ownership to all but a few of the anointed. After the lists were published by the press, I counted and ~60K each for handguns and long guns.

    While this isn't the sort of data our host is looking for, let me describe off the top of my head the eight remaining modern day slave states, judged by may or no issue concealed carry:

    No issue concealed carry states: Hawaii, Maryland effectively so, and New Jersey. Add San Francisco as a city, much more than NYC with only 1-3 licenses outstanding at any one time.

    Massachusetts: all gun ownership is now may issue, handguns were for a very long time. Along with CA and NY done by city or country so less populated ones are sometimes a lot better. There's a legally dangerous song and dance done with which licenses also allow concealed carry.

    New York handgun ownership is may issue (see John Derbyshire's experience). New Jersey is so insanely dangerous, ownership of guns and ammo is illegal except for specific exceptions so I'm not sure, but ownership has lots of roadblocks, and may be may issue especially for handguns.

    California is increasingly restrictive and now maybe going crazy after Bruen like NY on concealed carry as a whole. But ownership is shall issue, and this is true of other states I'm not going into details of like Illinois.

    Delaware and especially Rhode Island are too small for me to really care about, but they're various degrees of bad.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Achmed E. Newman

    California is increasingly restrictive and now maybe going crazy after Bruen like NY on concealed carry as a whole. But ownership is shall issue, and this is true of other states I’m not going into details of like Illinois.

    LA county is just as restrictive as NYC.

    I understand the concern in NYC. In a densely populated area there is a much higher risk of shooting a bystander. I certainly don’t support their policies but I would be against constitutional carry in that area. Most New Yorkers are boneheaded liberals and probably should not be packing on the subway unless they have gone through rigorous training.

    LA is all about politics as the liberals have consolidated their power and without any opposition. The California GOP has never really cared about guns and doesn’t push back against the state. I believe a self-selection process has occurred whereby the Whites that would be gun advocates have already moved out of the state. Live in Nevada or Arizona and shoot whatever you want. The remaining California Republicans are really just interested in tax cuts and playing golf. I loathe the California GOP. They would probably be fine with keeping the existing laws in exchange for a tax cut. The leaders are spoiled blue bloods that most likely don’t want the plebes to own handguns.

  24. Gun control, along the Australian/European model should reduce the black homicide rate because blacks don’t plan ahead well. In Europe blacks and other lower IQ immigrants do seem to struggle to get their hands on weapons – illegal firearms are mostly procured by organized crime.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun control, along the Australian/European model should reduce the black homicide rate because blacks don’t plan ahead well.

    So we should have to copy the Australian model because of Blacks?

    I'll take the conservative position of "guns for everyone and pretend race doesn't exist" over "ban the guns and good luck in Bantu areas" liberalism.

    What we need is for conservatives to stop being such pussies and talk about race. The state level correlations all fall apart when race is allowed as a variable.

    White people can have minimal gun laws and low homicide rates. It isn't the end of the world to admit this. What are conservatives afraid of? Losing Black votes? They vote Democrat 90% of the time.

    If Black homicide rates aren't lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth. That is what happened in California. A very tiny minority was doing the homicides and the Democrats enacted gun control for the entire state. Started with Reagan actually.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jenner Ickham Errican

  25. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    These graphs make a lot of sense when you think about them: a lot of whites are probably grateful that they live in a strict gun control state because they worry about who knows what they might have done in that one situation in which my significant other got me so irate
     
    Eh, is that a personal anecdote, or…

    Does Gun Control Drive Down the Black Homicide Rate?
     
    Anti-2A cucks Reg Cæsar and Jack D sure hope so! They’re really scared of Blacks with guns.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I don’t think of myself as being anti-2A but I’m not some sort of gun fetishist either. One of the problems with modern America is that everyone tends toward extremes – either no abortion at all or completely free abortion. Either guns everywhere or guns nowhere. The middle ground seems to be disappearing from our society and if you try to occupy it you will be called a “cuck”.

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result. If you had asked them they would looked at you as if you were nuts – don’t you know that blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes? But now we have the 14th on top of the 2nd and this is the unanticipated result – pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have actually wanted.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D


    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.
     
    I'm pretty sure too, Jack. They would have disagreed with almost all of the subsequent Amendments (after the B.O.R.) most especially because lots of them take away State power to regulate the vote.*

    However, I'm pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    .

    * Peak Stupidity has covered every one of those Amendments in our series Morning Constitutional, and the conclusion was that, in general, the Amendment process has been a bust!

    ** First I mean the black dysfunction and violence in the cities and then I mean the HUGE overreach of the Feral Beast.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jack D


    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.
     
    Your musing is moot: The Founding Fathers would still write and ratify 2A:

    If given an either/or choice: free the Blacks and keep them, or get rid of the Blacks entirely and keep 2A, the racist Founding Fathers would say get rid of the Blacks:

    We’ll keep our principles, and our nation, amongst equals.

    What would make no sense whatsoever from a Founding Father (or any civilized) perspective would be to free “impulsive and violent” Blacks and get rid of the Second Amendment. That would be like elevating wild apes to citizen status and disarming human citizens. You would be living in a dangerous zoo unarmed.

    If forced to live in a zoo, I would rather be armed, thanks. If some ‘apes’ get some guns and mostly shoot each other, that’s just kind of funny. WorldStar entertainment. And if the apes get extra uppity and try to attack or shoot you, that’s what 2A is for: Use it, if you’re not a cuck.

    https://twitter.com/AppalachianRune/status/1563990156327239686


    blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes
     
    Is it the guns or the Blacks that are “impulsive and violent”? Since guns are inanimate objects, but Blacks are bodies with autonomy—who even without guns far disproportionately “commit rapes and robberies and other crimes”—your position, logically, should be: “Get rid of the Blacks”. Or at the very least, control the Blacks via government, and if that fails (as it has in many places), via the Second Amendment. But that isn’t your argument. Curious.
    , @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes.
    Were there specifically racial prohibitions on gun ownership -- not controlling slaves but controlling free blacks? I don't know. I don't think so. What I had always heard was that the first racial gun controls were necessitated by the end of slavery, and so would be a century later.
    This is a wierdly ignorant shot in the dark by Jack. This is like when Democrats try to claim that only one type of weapon existed at the time or that the Founders didn't know anything about technology.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Jack D

  26. Also of interest is that white and Asian homicide death rates were about the same until 2007, but lately a noticeable gap has opened.

    I wonder if the SAT gap is related to this as well.

    Here is a speculation: perhaps the immigration selectivity for Asians has climbed since 20+ years ago and we are increasingly getting Asian immigrants with higher educational credentials (and lower violent criminal tendencies).

  27. @That Would Be Telling
    @Achmed E. Newman


    You can correlate murder rates in cities with State gun law, though the NYC’s and such may have their own much stricter laws (that don’t do jack squat to help lower murders, of course).
     
    NYC is now the sole outlier in banning mere legal gun ownership to all but a few of the anointed. After the lists were published by the press, I counted and ~60K each for handguns and long guns.

    While this isn't the sort of data our host is looking for, let me describe off the top of my head the eight remaining modern day slave states, judged by may or no issue concealed carry:

    No issue concealed carry states: Hawaii, Maryland effectively so, and New Jersey. Add San Francisco as a city, much more than NYC with only 1-3 licenses outstanding at any one time.

    Massachusetts: all gun ownership is now may issue, handguns were for a very long time. Along with CA and NY done by city or country so less populated ones are sometimes a lot better. There's a legally dangerous song and dance done with which licenses also allow concealed carry.

    New York handgun ownership is may issue (see John Derbyshire's experience). New Jersey is so insanely dangerous, ownership of guns and ammo is illegal except for specific exceptions so I'm not sure, but ownership has lots of roadblocks, and may be may issue especially for handguns.

    California is increasingly restrictive and now maybe going crazy after Bruen like NY on concealed carry as a whole. But ownership is shall issue, and this is true of other states I'm not going into details of like Illinois.

    Delaware and especially Rhode Island are too small for me to really care about, but they're various degrees of bad.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Achmed E. Newman

    This map only goes through ’17. Things have gotten even greener since then. (Green = Good)

    Yes, I am familiar with John Derbyshire’s travails. After a few years he’s finally got his gun(s) back.

    • Thanks: J.Ross
  28. @Jack D
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I don't think of myself as being anti-2A but I'm not some sort of gun fetishist either. One of the problems with modern America is that everyone tends toward extremes - either no abortion at all or completely free abortion. Either guns everywhere or guns nowhere. The middle ground seems to be disappearing from our society and if you try to occupy it you will be called a "cuck".

    I'm pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn't have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result. If you had asked them they would looked at you as if you were nuts - don't you know that blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes? But now we have the 14th on top of the 2nd and this is the unanticipated result - pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have actually wanted.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @J.Ross

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.

    I’m pretty sure too, Jack. They would have disagreed with almost all of the subsequent Amendments (after the B.O.R.) most especially because lots of them take away State power to regulate the vote.*

    However, I’m pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    .

    * Peak Stupidity has covered every one of those Amendments in our series Morning Constitutional, and the conclusion was that, in general, the Amendment process has been a bust!

    ** First I mean the black dysfunction and violence in the cities and then I mean the HUGE overreach of the Feral Beast.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    However, I’m pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    Yes but they wouldn't say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.

    They certainly wouldn't take the libertarian position which is that the founding fathers would have supported full-auto AK-47s for Black felons.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn't true. Not nearly absurd however as liberals trying to believe that the founders would have supported late term abortion through the right to privacy.

    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.

    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California. Then the GOP can congratulate themselves for not offending anyone by lying about race as the liberals go on a gun banning spree.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican

  29. @ic1000
    These state (jurisdiction) graphs typically have DC as an outlier, to the extent that its inclusion significantly raises the calculated correlation coefficient. So the first graph in this series (White Homicide Rate vs. Biden's Share of 2-Party Vote) is notable for the normalcy of the DC data point. (I can't even locate it.)

    I guess this gets filed under "things I already know," namely that DC's whites are unexceptional when it comes to killings and other forms of mayhem.

    Edit: Except for 1/6, where they homicided a cop and four of their own.
    [/sarc]

    Replies: @Muggles

    that DC’s whites are unexceptional when it comes to killings and other forms of mayhem.

    That is true but only if you exclude the actions of the mostly White Congress and Executive Branch. Of course most of that homicide and mayhem occurs outside of US borders.

    Those mostly White gangsters are the best armed in the world and are not hesitant to use those weapons. The non White members of that gang are not any more pacifistic.

  30. @That Would Be Telling
    @International Jew


    Unfortunately, criminals do carry guns across state lines. So Chicago’s murder rate may be influenced by the proximity of gun-friendly Indiana.
     
    When it comes to guns, Illinois is "an oasis of totalitarianism in a desert of freedom" to repurpose Iowahawk on colleges.

    You've got to go more than two states away to find ones that are anywhere what it's like. Chicago's ban on handgun (and sometimes?? long gun) ownership along with the state's no concealed carry except for the ruling trash regimes were struck down by the local Federal courts after MacDonald, outside of D.C. the only place that decision and Heller changed the facts on the ground for firearms. And they didn't take the Massive Resistance posture states like New York are doing after Bruen, it's accepted by the Chicago authorities for legally armed citizens to shoot criminals. The city is reduced to trying to keep gun stores and ranges outside of it.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    And they didn’t take the Massive Resistance posture states like New York are doing after Bruen

    2A people need a new paradigm for Cosmopolitan gun controller states where the gun controller is in charge in all areas of messaging. It’s the age of the internet, and rolling LED billboards; where is the anti-TPTB messenging? Where is the Bloomberg-is-defended-by-guns-and-so-is-the-Mayor cries? Only cops-politicians-TPTB are allowed guns but you are not. Be stupid, support billionaire gun control.

    All sorts of pro-gun messaging could be out there but isn’t.

    In short, where is the gun rights messaging for people who know something is wrong in that the cosmopolitans have destroyed their RKBA but haven’t the vaguest clue that they can do something about it?

    Look at this Ukrainian ad for Resistance Operating Concept that encapsulates in one minute what a citizen can be doing to resist an invasion by a superior military.

    Gun advocates NEED to do similar things in this age of the smartphone and Amazon server information propagation.

  31. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D


    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.
     
    I'm pretty sure too, Jack. They would have disagreed with almost all of the subsequent Amendments (after the B.O.R.) most especially because lots of them take away State power to regulate the vote.*

    However, I'm pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    .

    * Peak Stupidity has covered every one of those Amendments in our series Morning Constitutional, and the conclusion was that, in general, the Amendment process has been a bust!

    ** First I mean the black dysfunction and violence in the cities and then I mean the HUGE overreach of the Feral Beast.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    However, I’m pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    Yes but they wouldn’t say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.

    They certainly wouldn’t take the libertarian position which is that the founding fathers would have supported full-auto AK-47s for Black felons.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn’t true. Not nearly absurd however as liberals trying to believe that the founders would have supported late term abortion through the right to privacy.

    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.

    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California. Then the GOP can congratulate themselves for not offending anyone by lying about race as the liberals go on a gun banning spree.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @John Johnson

    OK, John, first of all you should understand that I'm talking about the hypothetical situation in which the Founders just all rolled out of their graves alive this year. Had it been more of a slow process, those gentlemen would have long ago brought out their rifles, AR's or not, as the purpose for Amendment II would have been obvious to them by 1913, arguably the 1930s, 1968 tops.


    Yes but they wouldn’t say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.
     
    I doubt very much they'd include blacks* in ANYTHING, but, upon waking up in 2022, it'd be what I wrote to Jack - even with the irresponsible black thugs with guns, the state of this Feral Gov't would have the former Founders reading the Survival blogs and learning about reloading modern ammo.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn’t true.
     
    Thanks for the small "c" on "conservative", because that clears it up. Yes, conservatives of the cucked persuasion dishonestly (or not) have that position. I'm a Conservative, and I don't. However, I don't think gun laws based on race will fly right now. There's too much water under the bridge, but remember what II-A is really about. That's the case now more than ever. (Sorry to sound like Richard Nixon there...)

    .

    * That's why I pointed out that they'd be dismayed by almost all of the Constitutional Amendments ratified since #10.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @John Johnson

    Let's talk the NRA for minute, John. They are not like TV commercials, but they do pander to the whole race/ethnicity business in their magazine, to a degree anyway. I really can't blame them, for 2 reasons:

    1) There's no use in bringing on another fight in addition to the one they've been fighting for many years.

    2) They are a single-issue organization. If they talk race realism, it's not the blacks (I think the ones that are in the NRA would understand perfectly!), but the on-the-fence White people who may quit based on this issue. They are, however, pretty straight about crime in the inner cities - they just don't mention color schemes.


    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California.
     
    I don't think the Founders could have possibly imagined California! They'd have needed 10 more Amendments in the Bill of Rights to take care of a contingency like California.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.
     
    Wut. Have you not been paying attention to Supreme Court rulings and state laws in the last few decades? Pro-gun people have been winning bigly! Where’s the losing? NY frantically flailing in the face of Bruen? They will be overruled. :)

    as the liberals go on a gun banning spree
     
    Liberals ain’t finna do shit. And if they try, it isn’t anything to do with Blacks; it’s about thwarting patriotic Whites those ‘liberals’ are afraid of. Which they should be.
  32. @Peter Akuleyev
    Gun control, along the Australian/European model should reduce the black homicide rate because blacks don’t plan ahead well. In Europe blacks and other lower IQ immigrants do seem to struggle to get their hands on weapons - illegal firearms are mostly procured by organized crime.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Gun control, along the Australian/European model should reduce the black homicide rate because blacks don’t plan ahead well.

    So we should have to copy the Australian model because of Blacks?

    I’ll take the conservative position of “guns for everyone and pretend race doesn’t exist” over “ban the guns and good luck in Bantu areas” liberalism.

    What we need is for conservatives to stop being such pussies and talk about race. The state level correlations all fall apart when race is allowed as a variable.

    White people can have minimal gun laws and low homicide rates. It isn’t the end of the world to admit this. What are conservatives afraid of? Losing Black votes? They vote Democrat 90% of the time.

    If Black homicide rates aren’t lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth. That is what happened in California. A very tiny minority was doing the homicides and the Democrats enacted gun control for the entire state. Started with Reagan actually.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    It's very hard to pull off because public "racism" is so taboo in modern day America and legally the structure required to be colorblind (except when it discriminates "in favor" of blacks). I think the trick to squaring the circle is somehow convincing people that taking away guns from blacks is "helping" them. A legal thumb on the scale to "help" blacks is always ok and is not "racism".

    This used to be the Dem position like with long sentences for drug dealers (cough blacks) that Biden once supported - the idea was that you would rid the black community of these "violent" blacks and the peaceful law abiding blacks would thank you for making their community safe. Except it turned out that the "violent" blacks were the sons and brothers of the "peaceful" blacks and the "peaceful" ones wanted their family members out of jail.

    So any proposal to lock up more blacks is pretty much off the table in modern discourse. Maybe there is some opening for Republicans to propose seizing pistols in "urban areas" (cough - from blacks). Maybe the po-lice could stop and frisk you and take away your illegal gun but otherwise let you go on your way.

    But the Dems for some strange reason only want to go after long guns ("assault rifles" - cough - guns that white men like) and don't seem to care about regulating the kinds of guns that blacks like.

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    If Black homicide rates aren’t lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth.
     
    They could pass “pass nationwide gun control” but it would be moot because we would already be in a hot civil war. One that I predict “the liberals” would lose badly.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.
     
    JJ, you’re doing the old mistaken Steve Sailer DR3 gun control explaino (Dems R the Real Racists) by assuming that real reason the current (post-Bush II) Left wants to ban guns is Black violence. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them. That’s what “scary black rifles” is about, for both sides.

    It ain’t about crime stats, Black or otherwise. Now you know.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  33. That raises the question of what’s going on with American Indians, a group that has gotten very little attention during the Great Awokening.

    For good reason.

    American Indians were kind of an “in” minority when I was young. But there are some minority groups that just really do not fit well with the “diversity” and “must have immigration!” narrative.

    The problem with American Indians is that they are a native group. And their complaint–“the white man drove us off our land” is a very nativist, dare i say “xenophobic” complaint. Not the sort of complaint the people who write American propaganda want to hear.

    Another minority group you aren’t supposed to talk about is the Gypsies. They are a separate integration rejecting tribe with a parasitic game-theory solution/niche. But they are so obviously parasitic upon–simply a criminal blight on–the gentile host population, that they highlight the host-population/minority-parasite relationship. Thinking very hard about Gypsies engenders all sorts of bad thoughts. So radio silence is the order of the day.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @AnotherDad

    Another minority group you aren’t supposed to talk about is the Gypsies. They are a separate integration rejecting tribe with a parasitic game-theory solution/niche. But they are so obviously parasitic upon–simply a criminal blight on–the gentile host population, that they highlight the host-population/minority-parasite relationship. Thinking very hard about Gypsies engenders all sorts of bad thoughts. So radio silence is the order of the day.

    The reason you don't hear lots about Gypsies in these United States is that they don't exist here in appreciable numbers. If you read the ,say, the Hungarian press- even well b4 the Orban Nationalist turn- you will hear a earful about gypsies. I think you underestimate the degree to which the New Class believes their own B.S.

  34. there’s not much correlation at all between Biden’s Share of the Vote and a state’s black homicide rate (r = 0.11):

    The critical value for the Product Moment Correlation Coefficient with n=50 is I believe 0.273, from tables, so r = 0.11 indicates zero correlation, not low correlation.

  35. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) puts forward a Democratic talking point

    Did you know? It’s states with loose gun laws where violence rates are the highest.

    Broken windows policing and “stop-and-frisk” tactics where extremely effective “gun control” policies for reducing gun violence caused by illegal guns. These policies saved thousands of lives in NYC alone in the 1990s and early aughts.

    Democrat race-hustlers and their pandering white enablers fanatically opposed these humane, effective policies because, I dunno, black perps getting stopped and frisked hurt their precious little feelings. The commission of an untold number of crimes mostly harming blacks and the blood of thousands of typically black victims and bystanders are on Democrat urban machine politicians (Dumpsters), not lawful gun owners.

  36. @John Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    However, I’m pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    Yes but they wouldn't say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.

    They certainly wouldn't take the libertarian position which is that the founding fathers would have supported full-auto AK-47s for Black felons.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn't true. Not nearly absurd however as liberals trying to believe that the founders would have supported late term abortion through the right to privacy.

    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.

    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California. Then the GOP can congratulate themselves for not offending anyone by lying about race as the liberals go on a gun banning spree.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    OK, John, first of all you should understand that I’m talking about the hypothetical situation in which the Founders just all rolled out of their graves alive this year. Had it been more of a slow process, those gentlemen would have long ago brought out their rifles, AR’s or not, as the purpose for Amendment II would have been obvious to them by 1913, arguably the 1930s, 1968 tops.

    Yes but they wouldn’t say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.

    I doubt very much they’d include blacks* in ANYTHING, but, upon waking up in 2022, it’d be what I wrote to Jack – even with the irresponsible black thugs with guns, the state of this Feral Gov’t would have the former Founders reading the Survival blogs and learning about reloading modern ammo.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn’t true.

    Thanks for the small “c” on “conservative”, because that clears it up. Yes, conservatives of the cucked persuasion dishonestly (or not) have that position. I’m a Conservative, and I don’t. However, I don’t think gun laws based on race will fly right now. There’s too much water under the bridge, but remember what II-A is really about. That’s the case now more than ever. (Sorry to sound like Richard Nixon there…)

    .

    * That’s why I pointed out that they’d be dismayed by almost all of the Constitutional Amendments ratified since #10.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman


    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn’t true.

     

    I’m a Conservative, and I don’t. However, I don’t think gun laws based on race will fly right now. There’s too much water under the bridge, but remember what II-A is really about. That’s the case now more than ever. (Sorry to sound like Richard Nixon there…)

    I'm not suggesting gun laws based on race.

    What I would like conservatives to do is call out liberals when they make these dishonest arguments. Stop letting them make these state based comparisons where they conveniently leave out race. Every rural White county has low gun homicide rates relative to gun ownership levels. Every single one.

    But I don't expect conservatives to do anything different. They have made it clear that they prefer to lie about race even if it means losing in the long term. They are afraid to move one inch from the plan which is pretend race doesn't exist and depict conservative values as being purely a matter of individual rights.

    Conservative leaders are cowards. They would let the country burn as long as they weren't called racist on CNN.

  37. @John Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    However, I’m pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    Yes but they wouldn't say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.

    They certainly wouldn't take the libertarian position which is that the founding fathers would have supported full-auto AK-47s for Black felons.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn't true. Not nearly absurd however as liberals trying to believe that the founders would have supported late term abortion through the right to privacy.

    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.

    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California. Then the GOP can congratulate themselves for not offending anyone by lying about race as the liberals go on a gun banning spree.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Let’s talk the NRA for minute, John. They are not like TV commercials, but they do pander to the whole race/ethnicity business in their magazine, to a degree anyway. I really can’t blame them, for 2 reasons:

    1) There’s no use in bringing on another fight in addition to the one they’ve been fighting for many years.

    2) They are a single-issue organization. If they talk race realism, it’s not the blacks (I think the ones that are in the NRA would understand perfectly!), but the on-the-fence White people who may quit based on this issue. They are, however, pretty straight about crime in the inner cities – they just don’t mention color schemes.

    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California.

    I don’t think the Founders could have possibly imagined California! They’d have needed 10 more Amendments in the Bill of Rights to take care of a contingency like California.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Let’s talk the NRA for minute, John. They are not like TV commercials, but they do pander to the whole race/ethnicity business in their magazine, to a degree anyway. I really can’t blame them, for 2 reasons:

    I completely get the reasoning and in the long term it is a losing strategy.

    Here is what happens:

    1. Dishonest journalists and liberals put out arguments that pretend race doesn't exist.

    2. The NRA never fully undermines them by also pretending that race doesn't exist. The NRA falls back to it being a right and doesn't get into the details of who actually commits gun crimes.

    3. Moderates and even some conservatives assumed that group #1 did their homework while the NRA/GOP is just being obstinate. Liberals depict themselves as trying to stop gun violence and the NRA just talks about rights.

    It's a weak strategy. It grants liberalism the argument that the guns are the driving variable.

  38. @John Johnson
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun control, along the Australian/European model should reduce the black homicide rate because blacks don’t plan ahead well.

    So we should have to copy the Australian model because of Blacks?

    I'll take the conservative position of "guns for everyone and pretend race doesn't exist" over "ban the guns and good luck in Bantu areas" liberalism.

    What we need is for conservatives to stop being such pussies and talk about race. The state level correlations all fall apart when race is allowed as a variable.

    White people can have minimal gun laws and low homicide rates. It isn't the end of the world to admit this. What are conservatives afraid of? Losing Black votes? They vote Democrat 90% of the time.

    If Black homicide rates aren't lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth. That is what happened in California. A very tiny minority was doing the homicides and the Democrats enacted gun control for the entire state. Started with Reagan actually.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    It’s very hard to pull off because public “racism” is so taboo in modern day America and legally the structure required to be colorblind (except when it discriminates “in favor” of blacks). I think the trick to squaring the circle is somehow convincing people that taking away guns from blacks is “helping” them. A legal thumb on the scale to “help” blacks is always ok and is not “racism”.

    This used to be the Dem position like with long sentences for drug dealers (cough blacks) that Biden once supported – the idea was that you would rid the black community of these “violent” blacks and the peaceful law abiding blacks would thank you for making their community safe. Except it turned out that the “violent” blacks were the sons and brothers of the “peaceful” blacks and the “peaceful” ones wanted their family members out of jail.

    So any proposal to lock up more blacks is pretty much off the table in modern discourse. Maybe there is some opening for Republicans to propose seizing pistols in “urban areas” (cough – from blacks). Maybe the po-lice could stop and frisk you and take away your illegal gun but otherwise let you go on your way.

    But the Dems for some strange reason only want to go after long guns (“assault rifles” – cough – guns that white men like) and don’t seem to care about regulating the kinds of guns that blacks like.

  39. Anon[143] • Disclaimer says:

    I noticed that the murder rate inside prisons is dwarfed by the black urban homicide rate.

    For instance: the homicide rate at San Quentin State Prison is 11 per 100,000. We all know black cities like Saint Louis or Baltimore have murder rates exceeding 50 per 100,000. Despite the fact that San Quentin houses the worst of worst male homicide offenders from California’s gang lands.

    It’s guns, not race. We are so utterly fucked.

  40. @AnotherDad

    That raises the question of what’s going on with American Indians, a group that has gotten very little attention during the Great Awokening.
     
    For good reason.

    American Indians were kind of an "in" minority when I was young. But there are some minority groups that just really do not fit well with the "diversity" and "must have immigration!" narrative.

    The problem with American Indians is that they are a native group. And their complaint--"the white man drove us off our land" is a very nativist, dare i say "xenophobic" complaint. Not the sort of complaint the people who write American propaganda want to hear.

    Another minority group you aren't supposed to talk about is the Gypsies. They are a separate integration rejecting tribe with a parasitic game-theory solution/niche. But they are so obviously parasitic upon--simply a criminal blight on--the gentile host population, that they highlight the host-population/minority-parasite relationship. Thinking very hard about Gypsies engenders all sorts of bad thoughts. So radio silence is the order of the day.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Another minority group you aren’t supposed to talk about is the Gypsies. They are a separate integration rejecting tribe with a parasitic game-theory solution/niche. But they are so obviously parasitic upon–simply a criminal blight on–the gentile host population, that they highlight the host-population/minority-parasite relationship. Thinking very hard about Gypsies engenders all sorts of bad thoughts. So radio silence is the order of the day.

    The reason you don’t hear lots about Gypsies in these United States is that they don’t exist here in appreciable numbers. If you read the ,say, the Hungarian press- even well b4 the Orban Nationalist turn- you will hear a earful about gypsies. I think you underestimate the degree to which the New Class believes their own B.S.

  41. @Jack D
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I don't think of myself as being anti-2A but I'm not some sort of gun fetishist either. One of the problems with modern America is that everyone tends toward extremes - either no abortion at all or completely free abortion. Either guns everywhere or guns nowhere. The middle ground seems to be disappearing from our society and if you try to occupy it you will be called a "cuck".

    I'm pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn't have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result. If you had asked them they would looked at you as if you were nuts - don't you know that blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes? But now we have the 14th on top of the 2nd and this is the unanticipated result - pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have actually wanted.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @J.Ross

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.

    Your musing is moot: The Founding Fathers would still write and ratify 2A:

    If given an either/or choice: free the Blacks and keep them, or get rid of the Blacks entirely and keep 2A, the racist Founding Fathers would say get rid of the Blacks:

    We’ll keep our principles, and our nation, amongst equals.

    What would make no sense whatsoever from a Founding Father (or any civilized) perspective would be to free “impulsive and violent” Blacks and get rid of the Second Amendment. That would be like elevating wild apes to citizen status and disarming human citizens. You would be living in a dangerous zoo unarmed.

    If forced to live in a zoo, I would rather be armed, thanks. If some ‘apes’ get some guns and mostly shoot each other, that’s just kind of funny. WorldStar entertainment. And if the apes get extra uppity and try to attack or shoot you, that’s what 2A is for: Use it, if you’re not a cuck.

    blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes

    Is it the guns or the Blacks that are “impulsive and violent”? Since guns are inanimate objects, but Blacks are bodies with autonomy—who even without guns far disproportionately “commit rapes and robberies and other crimes”—your position, logically, should be: “Get rid of the Blacks”. Or at the very least, control the Blacks via government, and if that fails (as it has in many places), via the Second Amendment. But that isn’t your argument. Curious.

  42. @John Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    However, I’m pretty sure, even with what they see now and BECAUSE of what they see now**, the Founders would be even more FOR Amendment II.

    Yes but they wouldn't say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.

    They certainly wouldn't take the libertarian position which is that the founding fathers would have supported full-auto AK-47s for Black felons.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn't true. Not nearly absurd however as liberals trying to believe that the founders would have supported late term abortion through the right to privacy.

    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.

    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California. Then the GOP can congratulate themselves for not offending anyone by lying about race as the liberals go on a gun banning spree.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I get that the conservative rationale is to play their own pretend game which while dishonest at least tries to preserve gun rights.

    Yea well they are losing.

    Wut. Have you not been paying attention to Supreme Court rulings and state laws in the last few decades? Pro-gun people have been winning bigly! Where’s the losing? NY frantically flailing in the face of Bruen? They will be overruled. 🙂

    as the liberals go on a gun banning spree

    Liberals ain’t finna do shit. And if they try, it isn’t anything to do with Blacks; it’s about thwarting patriotic Whites those ‘liberals’ are afraid of. Which they should be.

  43. @John Johnson
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Gun control, along the Australian/European model should reduce the black homicide rate because blacks don’t plan ahead well.

    So we should have to copy the Australian model because of Blacks?

    I'll take the conservative position of "guns for everyone and pretend race doesn't exist" over "ban the guns and good luck in Bantu areas" liberalism.

    What we need is for conservatives to stop being such pussies and talk about race. The state level correlations all fall apart when race is allowed as a variable.

    White people can have minimal gun laws and low homicide rates. It isn't the end of the world to admit this. What are conservatives afraid of? Losing Black votes? They vote Democrat 90% of the time.

    If Black homicide rates aren't lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth. That is what happened in California. A very tiny minority was doing the homicides and the Democrats enacted gun control for the entire state. Started with Reagan actually.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jenner Ickham Errican

    If Black homicide rates aren’t lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth.

    They could pass “pass nationwide gun control” but it would be moot because we would already be in a hot civil war. One that I predict “the liberals” would lose badly.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.

    JJ, you’re doing the old mistaken Steve Sailer DR3 gun control explaino (Dems R the Real Racists) by assuming that real reason the current (post-Bush II) Left wants to ban guns is Black violence. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them. That’s what “scary black rifles” is about, for both sides.

    It ain’t about crime stats, Black or otherwise. Now you know.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    JJ, you’re doing the old mistaken Steve Sailer DR3 gun control explaino (Dems R the Real Racists) by assuming that real reason the current (post-Bush II) Left wants to ban guns is Black violence. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them.

    It's more complicated than that.

    Yes the left has always wanted to ban guns. Nothing new, just ask Stalin:
    Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

    Yes there are leftists that want to ban AR-15s to disarm Whites. They also want to ban scoped rifles but know they can't suggest it at this time because of hunting.

    But most liberals are not leftists. They are on the left but have moderate positions compared to leftists. The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive. The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general. On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns. That way if a Black criminal stabs someone then odds are it will be someone else and they can get away. They don't expect the liberal men around them to pull a gun or be the hero. They are keenly aware that their men are weak and will run as well. They are like human deer and since the plan is to run they really don't want Blacks to be armed.

    The movement against the AR-15 is a leftist/suburban liberal combination. Leftists oppose them for reasons stated but suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting. They aren't very good with numbers and really believe it could happen at any moment.

    It ain’t about crime stats, Black or otherwise. Now you know.

    Well the left has never been about crime stats. They know full well what the truth is and only play stat games for the naive.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  44. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them. That’s what “scary black rifles” is about, for both sides.

    I think that’s on the money. So, far from trying to reduce Black on Black crime, they need it to stay elevated as leverage in their jihad against the deplorables.

    • Thanks: Jenner Ickham Errican
  45. @Achmed E. Newman
    @John Johnson

    OK, John, first of all you should understand that I'm talking about the hypothetical situation in which the Founders just all rolled out of their graves alive this year. Had it been more of a slow process, those gentlemen would have long ago brought out their rifles, AR's or not, as the purpose for Amendment II would have been obvious to them by 1913, arguably the 1930s, 1968 tops.


    Yes but they wouldn’t say that well you guys made such a mess that everyone should be able to buy an AR-15 at 18 in a private sale and that includes Blacks.
     
    I doubt very much they'd include blacks* in ANYTHING, but, upon waking up in 2022, it'd be what I wrote to Jack - even with the irresponsible black thugs with guns, the state of this Feral Gov't would have the former Founders reading the Survival blogs and learning about reloading modern ammo.

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn’t true.
     
    Thanks for the small "c" on "conservative", because that clears it up. Yes, conservatives of the cucked persuasion dishonestly (or not) have that position. I'm a Conservative, and I don't. However, I don't think gun laws based on race will fly right now. There's too much water under the bridge, but remember what II-A is really about. That's the case now more than ever. (Sorry to sound like Richard Nixon there...)

    .

    * That's why I pointed out that they'd be dismayed by almost all of the Constitutional Amendments ratified since #10.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The conservative position is dishonest. They try to believe that the founders were racially egalitarian but it just isn’t true.

    I’m a Conservative, and I don’t. However, I don’t think gun laws based on race will fly right now. There’s too much water under the bridge, but remember what II-A is really about. That’s the case now more than ever. (Sorry to sound like Richard Nixon there…)

    I’m not suggesting gun laws based on race.

    What I would like conservatives to do is call out liberals when they make these dishonest arguments. Stop letting them make these state based comparisons where they conveniently leave out race. Every rural White county has low gun homicide rates relative to gun ownership levels. Every single one.

    But I don’t expect conservatives to do anything different. They have made it clear that they prefer to lie about race even if it means losing in the long term. They are afraid to move one inch from the plan which is pretend race doesn’t exist and depict conservative values as being purely a matter of individual rights.

    Conservative leaders are cowards. They would let the country burn as long as they weren’t called racist on CNN.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  46. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    If Black homicide rates aren’t lowered then liberals will eventually get their supermajority and pass nationwide gun control rather than admit the truth.
     
    They could pass “pass nationwide gun control” but it would be moot because we would already be in a hot civil war. One that I predict “the liberals” would lose badly.

    Makes more sense for conservatives to break the ice and stop letting these dishonest liberals in the media make these arguments.
     
    JJ, you’re doing the old mistaken Steve Sailer DR3 gun control explaino (Dems R the Real Racists) by assuming that real reason the current (post-Bush II) Left wants to ban guns is Black violence. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them. That’s what “scary black rifles” is about, for both sides.

    It ain’t about crime stats, Black or otherwise. Now you know.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    JJ, you’re doing the old mistaken Steve Sailer DR3 gun control explaino (Dems R the Real Racists) by assuming that real reason the current (post-Bush II) Left wants to ban guns is Black violence. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them.

    It’s more complicated than that.

    Yes the left has always wanted to ban guns. Nothing new, just ask Stalin:
    Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

    Yes there are leftists that want to ban AR-15s to disarm Whites. They also want to ban scoped rifles but know they can’t suggest it at this time because of hunting.

    But most liberals are not leftists. They are on the left but have moderate positions compared to leftists. The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive. The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general. On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns. That way if a Black criminal stabs someone then odds are it will be someone else and they can get away. They don’t expect the liberal men around them to pull a gun or be the hero. They are keenly aware that their men are weak and will run as well. They are like human deer and since the plan is to run they really don’t want Blacks to be armed.

    The movement against the AR-15 is a leftist/suburban liberal combination. Leftists oppose them for reasons stated but suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting. They aren’t very good with numbers and really believe it could happen at any moment.

    It ain’t about crime stats, Black or otherwise. Now you know.

    Well the left has never been about crime stats. They know full well what the truth is and only play stat games for the naive.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive.
     
    Certainly since the 2020 racial reckoning (and COVID urban collapse) many former “typical White urban liberals” have become White suburban liberals. Which helps ameliorate their fear of Black predation, if segregated successfully. Some may even shift more Red, if they learned anything at all.

    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.
     
    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns.
     
    They even prefer no cops, until it all gets too hot and then the libs move to the suburbs.

    suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting
     
    That may have been the old ‘basic bitch’ fear, but on top of that, the new fear is civil war. Even the most bubble-blithe liberal is reading talk about a new civil war in think pieces in The Atlantic, NYT, Slate, Politico, etc.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    https://twitter.com/bgmasters/status/1459192621969018884

    Mr. Masters is firm but polite in the above video, but there is no harm in stoking liberal fears with bold mockery and defiance on guns: earnest, nerdy debates about Black crime stats won’t ‘convince’ them (though 13/65 poasting on Twitter will never get old).

    Hypochondriac Liberal Whites will either get demoralized (on guns) and back down, limited to performative whimpering and outrage, or they will really try to make a go of it (gun bans), and will ironically find out what sustained mass gun violence (among other trials of war) is all about. By then, it will be too late for them to cry uncle. ☠️

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @John Johnson

  47. @John Johnson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    JJ, you’re doing the old mistaken Steve Sailer DR3 gun control explaino (Dems R the Real Racists) by assuming that real reason the current (post-Bush II) Left wants to ban guns is Black violence. Steve corrected his mistake when he eventually realized (with some help from commenters like me and Jack Hanson) is what the Left really wants is to disarm patriotic Whites who could violently overthrow them.

    It's more complicated than that.

    Yes the left has always wanted to ban guns. Nothing new, just ask Stalin:
    Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

    Yes there are leftists that want to ban AR-15s to disarm Whites. They also want to ban scoped rifles but know they can't suggest it at this time because of hunting.

    But most liberals are not leftists. They are on the left but have moderate positions compared to leftists. The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive. The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general. On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns. That way if a Black criminal stabs someone then odds are it will be someone else and they can get away. They don't expect the liberal men around them to pull a gun or be the hero. They are keenly aware that their men are weak and will run as well. They are like human deer and since the plan is to run they really don't want Blacks to be armed.

    The movement against the AR-15 is a leftist/suburban liberal combination. Leftists oppose them for reasons stated but suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting. They aren't very good with numbers and really believe it could happen at any moment.

    It ain’t about crime stats, Black or otherwise. Now you know.

    Well the left has never been about crime stats. They know full well what the truth is and only play stat games for the naive.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive.

    Certainly since the 2020 racial reckoning (and COVID urban collapse) many former “typical White urban liberals” have become White suburban liberals. Which helps ameliorate their fear of Black predation, if segregated successfully. Some may even shift more Red, if they learned anything at all.

    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.

    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns.

    They even prefer no cops, until it all gets too hot and then the libs move to the suburbs.

    suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting

    That may have been the old ‘basic bitch’ fear, but on top of that, the new fear is civil war. Even the most bubble-blithe liberal is reading talk about a new civil war in think pieces in The Atlantic, NYT, Slate, Politico, etc.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    Mr. Masters is firm but polite in the above video, but there is no harm in stoking liberal fears with bold mockery and defiance on guns: earnest, nerdy debates about Black crime stats won’t ‘convince’ them (though 13/65 poasting on Twitter will never get old).

    Hypochondriac Liberal Whites will either get demoralized (on guns) and back down, limited to performative whimpering and outrage, or they will really try to make a go of it (gun bans), and will ironically find out what sustained mass gun violence (among other trials of war) is all about. By then, it will be too late for them to cry uncle. ☠️

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:
     
    Note that the latest load of Cosmopolitan Gun Controls passed by Highland Park, IL and the People's Republic of New York State make it clear that they fear YOU, the People's Unorganized Militia and not just the awful semi-automatic assault weapon with the uncalled for large capacity magazines - they have included BODY ARMOR i.e. standard militia equipment in their gun control legislation.

    Naperville, IL passed a ban on the retail sale of assault weapons, on a vote of 8-1. Note that it wasn't the awful weapons that scared them, it was the fact that the weapons would be sold to the unorganized militia. The cosmopolitans allowed the retail sale to LAW ENFORCEMENT, people who the government would command against 2A militia.

    The governments are choosing up sides for future conflict, and are revealing who they are.

    , @John Johnson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.
     
    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    No it isn't good news because they vote and support the system. Liberals currently have the superior strategy and will eventually turn the country into California if nothing changes. Meaning a whole new set of gun laws. They want to limit rural Whites to basic hunting guns and make it near impossible for anyone to buy a handgun.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    I think that is a wiser line and especially since the liberals will use the same rationale to go after other guns once they get AR-15s banned. You don't need a Glock for hunting.

    But the real solution is to put liberals on the defensive. Stop letting them pretend that race isn't a factor. Liberals are not as confident as they appear on television. If they think the race lie is threatened then they will abdicate the argument. Conservatives grant them the debate by playing nice. They don't attack the core liberal lie which is that the guns are the overriding factor. They are afraid of being called racist but this only affirms the liberal argument.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  48. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive.
     
    Certainly since the 2020 racial reckoning (and COVID urban collapse) many former “typical White urban liberals” have become White suburban liberals. Which helps ameliorate their fear of Black predation, if segregated successfully. Some may even shift more Red, if they learned anything at all.

    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.
     
    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns.
     
    They even prefer no cops, until it all gets too hot and then the libs move to the suburbs.

    suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting
     
    That may have been the old ‘basic bitch’ fear, but on top of that, the new fear is civil war. Even the most bubble-blithe liberal is reading talk about a new civil war in think pieces in The Atlantic, NYT, Slate, Politico, etc.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    https://twitter.com/bgmasters/status/1459192621969018884

    Mr. Masters is firm but polite in the above video, but there is no harm in stoking liberal fears with bold mockery and defiance on guns: earnest, nerdy debates about Black crime stats won’t ‘convince’ them (though 13/65 poasting on Twitter will never get old).

    Hypochondriac Liberal Whites will either get demoralized (on guns) and back down, limited to performative whimpering and outrage, or they will really try to make a go of it (gun bans), and will ironically find out what sustained mass gun violence (among other trials of war) is all about. By then, it will be too late for them to cry uncle. ☠️

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @John Johnson

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    Note that the latest load of Cosmopolitan Gun Controls passed by Highland Park, IL and the People’s Republic of New York State make it clear that they fear YOU, the People’s Unorganized Militia and not just the awful semi-automatic assault weapon with the uncalled for large capacity magazines – they have included BODY ARMOR i.e. standard militia equipment in their gun control legislation.

    Naperville, IL passed a ban on the retail sale of assault weapons, on a vote of 8-1. Note that it wasn’t the awful weapons that scared them, it was the fact that the weapons would be sold to the unorganized militia. The cosmopolitans allowed the retail sale to LAW ENFORCEMENT, people who the government would command against 2A militia.

    The governments are choosing up sides for future conflict, and are revealing who they are.

  49. @Jack D
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I don't think of myself as being anti-2A but I'm not some sort of gun fetishist either. One of the problems with modern America is that everyone tends toward extremes - either no abortion at all or completely free abortion. Either guns everywhere or guns nowhere. The middle ground seems to be disappearing from our society and if you try to occupy it you will be called a "cuck".

    I'm pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn't have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result. If you had asked them they would looked at you as if you were nuts - don't you know that blacks as a group are too impulsive and violent to be trusted with guns and that some blacks will use them to commit rapes and robberies and other crimes? But now we have the 14th on top of the 2nd and this is the unanticipated result - pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers would have actually wanted.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @J.Ross

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes.
    Were there specifically racial prohibitions on gun ownership — not controlling slaves but controlling free blacks? I don’t know. I don’t think so. What I had always heard was that the first racial gun controls were necessitated by the end of slavery, and so would be a century later.
    This is a wierdly ignorant shot in the dark by Jack. This is like when Democrats try to claim that only one type of weapon existed at the time or that the Founders didn’t know anything about technology.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @J.Ross

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes

    Where Blacks conferred the rights of the constitution? No.

    Were the founding fathers racial egalitarians? No.

    Both liberals and conservatives promote historical revisionism. Liberals want to believe they were racial egalitarians and conservatives want to believe they were race blind and would have supported selling AR-15s to anyone born in the country.

    Jefferson owned slaves and had sex with the women. This idea that he believed in constitutional rights for Blacks is a joke. Banging away at your slaves that were born in America really doesn't constitute an egalitarian or equal rights position.

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross

    , @Jack D
    @J.Ross


    Were there specifically racial prohibitions on gun ownership — not controlling slaves but controlling free blacks? I don’t know. I don’t think so.

     

    You are wrong - there were laws against all blacks and not just slaves owning guns. Taney made the connection in Dred Sc0tt - you can't allow blacks to be citizens because then they would have 2nd Amendment rights and would go around shooting people, which is in fact exactly what has happened. As I said before, the 2nd Amendment was intended to give WHITE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. By constitutionally overruling Dred Scott and making blacks citizens the later amendments made the 2A something other than what was originally intended.

    The founding generation that wrote the Second Amendment had racist gun laws, including prohibitions on the possession or carrying of firearms by Black people, whether free or enslaved.

    A Florida law in 1825 authorized white people to “enter into all Negro houses” and “lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition.”

    In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that one reason Black people could not be citizens under the Constitution was that it “would give to persons of the negro race” the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

     

    https://harvardlawreview.org/2022/06/racist-gun-laws-and-the-second-amendment/

    Of course the law review thinks this is a bad thing but to me it shows the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers - they knew what would happen if you let blacks have guns and exactly what they thought would happen has in fact happened. But of course you are not allowed to say this publicly, all you can do is decry their racism and take their names off of everything - they were right and that is the most unforgivable thing of all.

  50. @Achmed E. Newman
    @John Johnson

    Let's talk the NRA for minute, John. They are not like TV commercials, but they do pander to the whole race/ethnicity business in their magazine, to a degree anyway. I really can't blame them, for 2 reasons:

    1) There's no use in bringing on another fight in addition to the one they've been fighting for many years.

    2) They are a single-issue organization. If they talk race realism, it's not the blacks (I think the ones that are in the NRA would understand perfectly!), but the on-the-fence White people who may quit based on this issue. They are, however, pretty straight about crime in the inner cities - they just don't mention color schemes.


    Only a matter of time before liberals turn the entire country into California.
     
    I don't think the Founders could have possibly imagined California! They'd have needed 10 more Amendments in the Bill of Rights to take care of a contingency like California.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Let’s talk the NRA for minute, John. They are not like TV commercials, but they do pander to the whole race/ethnicity business in their magazine, to a degree anyway. I really can’t blame them, for 2 reasons:

    I completely get the reasoning and in the long term it is a losing strategy.

    Here is what happens:

    1. Dishonest journalists and liberals put out arguments that pretend race doesn’t exist.

    2. The NRA never fully undermines them by also pretending that race doesn’t exist. The NRA falls back to it being a right and doesn’t get into the details of who actually commits gun crimes.

    3. Moderates and even some conservatives assumed that group #1 did their homework while the NRA/GOP is just being obstinate. Liberals depict themselves as trying to stop gun violence and the NRA just talks about rights.

    It’s a weak strategy. It grants liberalism the argument that the guns are the driving variable.

  51. @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes.
    Were there specifically racial prohibitions on gun ownership -- not controlling slaves but controlling free blacks? I don't know. I don't think so. What I had always heard was that the first racial gun controls were necessitated by the end of slavery, and so would be a century later.
    This is a wierdly ignorant shot in the dark by Jack. This is like when Democrats try to claim that only one type of weapon existed at the time or that the Founders didn't know anything about technology.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Jack D

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes

    Where Blacks conferred the rights of the constitution? No.

    Were the founding fathers racial egalitarians? No.

    Both liberals and conservatives promote historical revisionism. Liberals want to believe they were racial egalitarians and conservatives want to believe they were race blind and would have supported selling AR-15s to anyone born in the country.

    Jefferson owned slaves and had sex with the women. This idea that he believed in constitutional rights for Blacks is a joke. Banging away at your slaves that were born in America really doesn’t constitute an egalitarian or equal rights position.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks. Would Jefferson have allowed his field hands to have guns? Hell no. Would he have trusted the members of the Hemings family with guns? Most likely - he trusted James to cook his food and not poison him, he trusted Sally to be his daughter's nanny, etc. These people literally slept under the same roof (in Sally's case, probably in his bed) and were like family to him (or in many cases actually WERE family).

    But Jefferson understood that blacks in general were childlike and could not all be freed and made equal citizens. Jefferson wrote that maintaining slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go." His solution was to send them back to Africa but that never worked out.

    https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/#footnote15_n8almxa

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @J.Ross
    @John Johnson

    A Hemingsist, opinion discarded. If rape ended Constitutional rights then why can present-day rape victims vote? Also, if blacks were not subject to the law, which at that time enslaved some and freed others, so neither the slavery nor the freedom was a contradiction of the law, why was it necessary for the Supreme Court to much later establish that blacks had no rights. How did free blacks own slaves, land, and houses if they had no rights? How did they protect their land? With sticks?
    Jack has left himself one out here, which is that, while free blacks existed, they weten't common. Unlike the totalitarian horror our legal system has degenerated into and which Jack represents, the Founders themselves who framed the law did not think every single little circumstance needed a Supreme Court ruling and five hundred paragraphs of code (not counting agency regulations). If something was rare and/or covered by tradition, they were generally content to let it be

  52. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    The typical urban White liberal is afraid of being shot by a Black criminal. That is their primary motive.
     
    Certainly since the 2020 racial reckoning (and COVID urban collapse) many former “typical White urban liberals” have become White suburban liberals. Which helps ameliorate their fear of Black predation, if segregated successfully. Some may even shift more Red, if they learned anything at all.

    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.
     
    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    On a subway or busy street the White liberal would prefer everyone to not have guns.
     
    They even prefer no cops, until it all gets too hot and then the libs move to the suburbs.

    suburban liberals are very emotional and really do fear being shot in a mass shooting
     
    That may have been the old ‘basic bitch’ fear, but on top of that, the new fear is civil war. Even the most bubble-blithe liberal is reading talk about a new civil war in think pieces in The Atlantic, NYT, Slate, Politico, etc.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    https://twitter.com/bgmasters/status/1459192621969018884

    Mr. Masters is firm but polite in the above video, but there is no harm in stoking liberal fears with bold mockery and defiance on guns: earnest, nerdy debates about Black crime stats won’t ‘convince’ them (though 13/65 poasting on Twitter will never get old).

    Hypochondriac Liberal Whites will either get demoralized (on guns) and back down, limited to performative whimpering and outrage, or they will really try to make a go of it (gun bans), and will ironically find out what sustained mass gun violence (among other trials of war) is all about. By then, it will be too late for them to cry uncle. ☠️

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @John Johnson

    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.

    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    No it isn’t good news because they vote and support the system. Liberals currently have the superior strategy and will eventually turn the country into California if nothing changes. Meaning a whole new set of gun laws. They want to limit rural Whites to basic hunting guns and make it near impossible for anyone to buy a handgun.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    I think that is a wiser line and especially since the liberals will use the same rationale to go after other guns once they get AR-15s banned. You don’t need a Glock for hunting.

    But the real solution is to put liberals on the defensive. Stop letting them pretend that race isn’t a factor. Liberals are not as confident as they appear on television. If they think the race lie is threatened then they will abdicate the argument. Conservatives grant them the debate by playing nice. They don’t attack the core liberal lie which is that the guns are the overriding factor. They are afraid of being called racist but this only affirms the liberal argument.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    Liberals currently have the superior strategy and will eventually turn the country into California if nothing changes. Meaning a whole new set of gun laws.
     
    Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news: California is subject to new gun laws, courtesy of the Supreme Court. Pending cases possibly working their way to the SC include rulings against “assault rifle” bans and mag capacity limits. The current court is overturning gun laws in the Right’s favor. Take the win, Debbie Downer.

    They want to limit rural Whites to basic hunting guns and make it near impossible for anyone to buy a handgun.
     
    That’s cute. “They want”. Back in reality, rural and urban Whites and the rest now have it easier than ever before to own guns and carry guns of their choice.

    once they get AR-15s banned
     
    Won’t happen nationally. What is far more likely is that the SC will strike down local AR-15 bans in the few remaining places that maintain those bans.

    Stop letting them pretend that race isn’t a factor.
     
    Race is not a factor at all in the gun ‘debate’. It’s noise. At best, it’s fun sport for the Right to dunk on Blacks and scared ‘liberals’ with 13/65 posting.

    If you want to ‘own the libs’ on race, hit them on affirmative action. Rile them up by calling Blacks dumb. But implying 2A and 14th EPC are incompatible “because Blacks” is an own goal.

    Your real argument is that Blacks, being too incompetent to own guns, have revealed themselves as too incompetent to be citizens and have equal rights at all—i.e. subject to Jim Crow laws or stronger. But you’re too pussy to make that argument, or to say public conservatives should make that argument.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  53. @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    I’m pretty sure that when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2A they didn’t have in mind that blacks would be allowed to have guns as a result.

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes.
    Were there specifically racial prohibitions on gun ownership -- not controlling slaves but controlling free blacks? I don't know. I don't think so. What I had always heard was that the first racial gun controls were necessitated by the end of slavery, and so would be a century later.
    This is a wierdly ignorant shot in the dark by Jack. This is like when Democrats try to claim that only one type of weapon existed at the time or that the Founders didn't know anything about technology.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Jack D

    Were there specifically racial prohibitions on gun ownership — not controlling slaves but controlling free blacks? I don’t know. I don’t think so.

    You are wrong – there were laws against all blacks and not just slaves owning guns. Taney made the connection in Dred Sc0tt – you can’t allow blacks to be citizens because then they would have 2nd Amendment rights and would go around shooting people, which is in fact exactly what has happened. As I said before, the 2nd Amendment was intended to give WHITE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. By constitutionally overruling Dred Scott and making blacks citizens the later amendments made the 2A something other than what was originally intended.

    The founding generation that wrote the Second Amendment had racist gun laws, including prohibitions on the possession or carrying of firearms by Black people, whether free or enslaved.

    A Florida law in 1825 authorized white people to “enter into all Negro houses” and “lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition.”

    In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that one reason Black people could not be citizens under the Constitution was that it “would give to persons of the negro race” the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

    https://harvardlawreview.org/2022/06/racist-gun-laws-and-the-second-amendment/

    Of course the law review thinks this is a bad thing but to me it shows the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers – they knew what would happen if you let blacks have guns and exactly what they thought would happen has in fact happened. But of course you are not allowed to say this publicly, all you can do is decry their racism and take their names off of everything – they were right and that is the most unforgivable thing of all.

  54. @John Johnson
    @J.Ross

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes

    Where Blacks conferred the rights of the constitution? No.

    Were the founding fathers racial egalitarians? No.

    Both liberals and conservatives promote historical revisionism. Liberals want to believe they were racial egalitarians and conservatives want to believe they were race blind and would have supported selling AR-15s to anyone born in the country.

    Jefferson owned slaves and had sex with the women. This idea that he believed in constitutional rights for Blacks is a joke. Banging away at your slaves that were born in America really doesn't constitute an egalitarian or equal rights position.

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks. Would Jefferson have allowed his field hands to have guns? Hell no. Would he have trusted the members of the Hemings family with guns? Most likely – he trusted James to cook his food and not poison him, he trusted Sally to be his daughter’s nanny, etc. These people literally slept under the same roof (in Sally’s case, probably in his bed) and were like family to him (or in many cases actually WERE family).

    But Jefferson understood that blacks in general were childlike and could not all be freed and made equal citizens. Jefferson wrote that maintaining slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” His solution was to send them back to Africa but that never worked out.

    https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/#footnote15_n8almxa

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks.

    Sure but I think political policy is what matters. I am fully aware that there were free Blacks and some walked around with guns, especially before the North/South divide. But that doesn't change the constitution and the intent. I wouldn't describe myself as some paleo conservative constitutionalist by any means. In fact I am to left of Democrats on quite a few economic issues. I just think both sides are plain full of shit on guns and grow tired of their historical revisionism. Liberals are even worse when it comes to abortion and the constitution. Roe v Wade was always a weak constitutional case and in fact not normally debated at law schools because it was embarrassing. The main defense of Roe is that it is a settled case, not that it is constitutional.

    But the point is that there is no reason to believe that the founding fathers would be in agreement with today's conservatives when it comes to guns. They didn't think Blacks should vote and it is absurd to think that they actually meant for Blacks to be citizens and own AR-15s. Conservatives might *want to believe* this but that doesn't make it true. I'm not taking the position that they were wrong or right. I'm pointing out that conservatives are full of shit.

    The founding fathers would be even further from libertarians who ironically quote Jefferson and admire him.

    Libertarians want to sell full auto M16s to not only Black felons but also open the borders to the third world and let them buy all the guns they want. They really believe in selling SAWs to Muslims that just got off the boat. It is all in their platform at lp.org, not my personal take on it. They think crack and M249s should be sold in retail stores to anyone.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Joe Stalin

  55. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks. Would Jefferson have allowed his field hands to have guns? Hell no. Would he have trusted the members of the Hemings family with guns? Most likely - he trusted James to cook his food and not poison him, he trusted Sally to be his daughter's nanny, etc. These people literally slept under the same roof (in Sally's case, probably in his bed) and were like family to him (or in many cases actually WERE family).

    But Jefferson understood that blacks in general were childlike and could not all be freed and made equal citizens. Jefferson wrote that maintaining slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go." His solution was to send them back to Africa but that never worked out.

    https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/#footnote15_n8almxa

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks.

    Sure but I think political policy is what matters. I am fully aware that there were free Blacks and some walked around with guns, especially before the North/South divide. But that doesn’t change the constitution and the intent. I wouldn’t describe myself as some paleo conservative constitutionalist by any means. In fact I am to left of Democrats on quite a few economic issues. I just think both sides are plain full of shit on guns and grow tired of their historical revisionism. Liberals are even worse when it comes to abortion and the constitution. Roe v Wade was always a weak constitutional case and in fact not normally debated at law schools because it was embarrassing. The main defense of Roe is that it is a settled case, not that it is constitutional.

    But the point is that there is no reason to believe that the founding fathers would be in agreement with today’s conservatives when it comes to guns. They didn’t think Blacks should vote and it is absurd to think that they actually meant for Blacks to be citizens and own AR-15s. Conservatives might *want to believe* this but that doesn’t make it true. I’m not taking the position that they were wrong or right. I’m pointing out that conservatives are full of shit.

    The founding fathers would be even further from libertarians who ironically quote Jefferson and admire him.

    Libertarians want to sell full auto M16s to not only Black felons but also open the borders to the third world and let them buy all the guns they want. They really believe in selling SAWs to Muslims that just got off the boat. It is all in their platform at lp.org, not my personal take on it. They think crack and M249s should be sold in retail stores to anyone.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    The Left has played a very clever shell game with the Constitution thru the Amendment process, as Achmed has stated.

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights (very appropriately) grants a very broad set of rights to "citizens", by which the Founders meant, generally speaking, free white men. The right to vote, to bear arms, to be tried by a jury of their peers (meaning other free white men) and qualify for high office, and so on, in accordance with common law tradition. All good stuff which had helped to make England (and later the colonies) among the richest, freest places on earth. Much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was a codification of what had been traditionally part of the English common law but which, after the colonies had started acting up, the colonial masters had tried to take away or limit and the Founders wanted to clearly restore those ancient rights and ensure that no later government would try to take them away again.

    And then here is the trick - you don't have to change a word of the Constitution itself, but you define "citizen" to mean something other than what "citizen" was supposed to mean - blacks are citizens, women are citizens, Asians are citizens and so on. Animal rights activists today would like to give chimps "human rights" as well. If we redefine citizen to include chimps then the job is done.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Joe Stalin
    @John Johnson


    M249s should be sold in retail stores to anyone.
     
    I've heard FN America radio ads hawking the M249S to the Joe Blow citizens around Chicago.

    https://fnamerica.com/rifles/fn-m249s-series/?utm_source=meganav_by-series

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww2KN5jDD3s

    Libertarians want to sell full auto M16s
     
    Sounds like Switzerland or before NFA 1934, when the Second Amendment reigned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOErri-3Z5E

    Too bad the US populace has been cowed into giving up their rights.
  56. @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks.

    Sure but I think political policy is what matters. I am fully aware that there were free Blacks and some walked around with guns, especially before the North/South divide. But that doesn't change the constitution and the intent. I wouldn't describe myself as some paleo conservative constitutionalist by any means. In fact I am to left of Democrats on quite a few economic issues. I just think both sides are plain full of shit on guns and grow tired of their historical revisionism. Liberals are even worse when it comes to abortion and the constitution. Roe v Wade was always a weak constitutional case and in fact not normally debated at law schools because it was embarrassing. The main defense of Roe is that it is a settled case, not that it is constitutional.

    But the point is that there is no reason to believe that the founding fathers would be in agreement with today's conservatives when it comes to guns. They didn't think Blacks should vote and it is absurd to think that they actually meant for Blacks to be citizens and own AR-15s. Conservatives might *want to believe* this but that doesn't make it true. I'm not taking the position that they were wrong or right. I'm pointing out that conservatives are full of shit.

    The founding fathers would be even further from libertarians who ironically quote Jefferson and admire him.

    Libertarians want to sell full auto M16s to not only Black felons but also open the borders to the third world and let them buy all the guns they want. They really believe in selling SAWs to Muslims that just got off the boat. It is all in their platform at lp.org, not my personal take on it. They think crack and M249s should be sold in retail stores to anyone.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Joe Stalin

    The Left has played a very clever shell game with the Constitution thru the Amendment process, as Achmed has stated.

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights (very appropriately) grants a very broad set of rights to “citizens”, by which the Founders meant, generally speaking, free white men. The right to vote, to bear arms, to be tried by a jury of their peers (meaning other free white men) and qualify for high office, and so on, in accordance with common law tradition. All good stuff which had helped to make England (and later the colonies) among the richest, freest places on earth. Much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was a codification of what had been traditionally part of the English common law but which, after the colonies had started acting up, the colonial masters had tried to take away or limit and the Founders wanted to clearly restore those ancient rights and ensure that no later government would try to take them away again.

    And then here is the trick – you don’t have to change a word of the Constitution itself, but you define “citizen” to mean something other than what “citizen” was supposed to mean – blacks are citizens, women are citizens, Asians are citizens and so on. Animal rights activists today would like to give chimps “human rights” as well. If we redefine citizen to include chimps then the job is done.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    I am fully aware that the left plays all kinds of dishonest games. It's what they do. They know that the world isn't egalitarian and their plans require them to lie. They have been lying about genetics since the French revolution. Marx straight up called for an end to the free press. Only the government gets an opinion.

    But what bothers me is that conservatives have adopted their own set of lies while seemingly comfortable with losing.

    I don't get the point of an opposition party that makes for lousy opposition and also believes in lying.

    You might as well at least go down telling the truth. Maybe it will inspire a proper opposition that isn't afraid of discussing reality. If you are losing then what difference does it make?

    As I said before I used to hang out with a Republican activist and privately he would admit that the GOP has to lie about race. Oh ok so everyone lies but it's only wrong when the other side does it?

    The Democrats were only couple votes away from banning AR-15s. Sure the GOP will pick up some seats this year but this is the same pattern that California followed. Eventually the Democrats will get their majority and do as they please. Then what is the response of the GOP? Well at least they didn't call us racist? All those endless debates involving dishonest arguments become pointless. So why not face reality and tell the truth like a man?

    Replies: @Jack D

  57. @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    Race relations in the South were very complex and rendered not in black and white but in shades of gray (brown?). There were trusted mulattoes (trusted because they were often your children or relatives) and untrusted blacks.

    Sure but I think political policy is what matters. I am fully aware that there were free Blacks and some walked around with guns, especially before the North/South divide. But that doesn't change the constitution and the intent. I wouldn't describe myself as some paleo conservative constitutionalist by any means. In fact I am to left of Democrats on quite a few economic issues. I just think both sides are plain full of shit on guns and grow tired of their historical revisionism. Liberals are even worse when it comes to abortion and the constitution. Roe v Wade was always a weak constitutional case and in fact not normally debated at law schools because it was embarrassing. The main defense of Roe is that it is a settled case, not that it is constitutional.

    But the point is that there is no reason to believe that the founding fathers would be in agreement with today's conservatives when it comes to guns. They didn't think Blacks should vote and it is absurd to think that they actually meant for Blacks to be citizens and own AR-15s. Conservatives might *want to believe* this but that doesn't make it true. I'm not taking the position that they were wrong or right. I'm pointing out that conservatives are full of shit.

    The founding fathers would be even further from libertarians who ironically quote Jefferson and admire him.

    Libertarians want to sell full auto M16s to not only Black felons but also open the borders to the third world and let them buy all the guns they want. They really believe in selling SAWs to Muslims that just got off the boat. It is all in their platform at lp.org, not my personal take on it. They think crack and M249s should be sold in retail stores to anyone.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Joe Stalin

    M249s should be sold in retail stores to anyone.

    I’ve heard FN America radio ads hawking the M249S to the Joe Blow citizens around Chicago.

    https://fnamerica.com/rifles/fn-m249s-series/?utm_source=meganav_by-series

    Libertarians want to sell full auto M16s

    Sounds like Switzerland or before NFA 1934, when the Second Amendment reigned.

    Too bad the US populace has been cowed into giving up their rights.

  58. @John Johnson
    @J.Ross

    Did free blacks exist? Yes.
    Did black gun owners exist? Yes.
    Did blacks participate in the revolution? Yes

    Where Blacks conferred the rights of the constitution? No.

    Were the founding fathers racial egalitarians? No.

    Both liberals and conservatives promote historical revisionism. Liberals want to believe they were racial egalitarians and conservatives want to believe they were race blind and would have supported selling AR-15s to anyone born in the country.

    Jefferson owned slaves and had sex with the women. This idea that he believed in constitutional rights for Blacks is a joke. Banging away at your slaves that were born in America really doesn't constitute an egalitarian or equal rights position.

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross

    A Hemingsist, opinion discarded. If rape ended Constitutional rights then why can present-day rape victims vote? Also, if blacks were not subject to the law, which at that time enslaved some and freed others, so neither the slavery nor the freedom was a contradiction of the law, why was it necessary for the Supreme Court to much later establish that blacks had no rights. How did free blacks own slaves, land, and houses if they had no rights? How did they protect their land? With sticks?
    Jack has left himself one out here, which is that, while free blacks existed, they weten’t common. Unlike the totalitarian horror our legal system has degenerated into and which Jack represents, the Founders themselves who framed the law did not think every single little circumstance needed a Supreme Court ruling and five hundred paragraphs of code (not counting agency regulations). If something was rare and/or covered by tradition, they were generally content to let it be

  59. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    The Left has played a very clever shell game with the Constitution thru the Amendment process, as Achmed has stated.

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights (very appropriately) grants a very broad set of rights to "citizens", by which the Founders meant, generally speaking, free white men. The right to vote, to bear arms, to be tried by a jury of their peers (meaning other free white men) and qualify for high office, and so on, in accordance with common law tradition. All good stuff which had helped to make England (and later the colonies) among the richest, freest places on earth. Much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was a codification of what had been traditionally part of the English common law but which, after the colonies had started acting up, the colonial masters had tried to take away or limit and the Founders wanted to clearly restore those ancient rights and ensure that no later government would try to take them away again.

    And then here is the trick - you don't have to change a word of the Constitution itself, but you define "citizen" to mean something other than what "citizen" was supposed to mean - blacks are citizens, women are citizens, Asians are citizens and so on. Animal rights activists today would like to give chimps "human rights" as well. If we redefine citizen to include chimps then the job is done.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I am fully aware that the left plays all kinds of dishonest games. It’s what they do. They know that the world isn’t egalitarian and their plans require them to lie. They have been lying about genetics since the French revolution. Marx straight up called for an end to the free press. Only the government gets an opinion.

    But what bothers me is that conservatives have adopted their own set of lies while seemingly comfortable with losing.

    I don’t get the point of an opposition party that makes for lousy opposition and also believes in lying.

    You might as well at least go down telling the truth. Maybe it will inspire a proper opposition that isn’t afraid of discussing reality. If you are losing then what difference does it make?

    As I said before I used to hang out with a Republican activist and privately he would admit that the GOP has to lie about race. Oh ok so everyone lies but it’s only wrong when the other side does it?

    The Democrats were only couple votes away from banning AR-15s. Sure the GOP will pick up some seats this year but this is the same pattern that California followed. Eventually the Democrats will get their majority and do as they please. Then what is the response of the GOP? Well at least they didn’t call us racist? All those endless debates involving dishonest arguments become pointless. So why not face reality and tell the truth like a man?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    You first. Steve and Derbyshire told the truth and they were unpersoned. Not just by the Left but by "conservative" outlets like the National Review. Republicans in Washington still want to get invited to cocktail parties.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  60. @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    I am fully aware that the left plays all kinds of dishonest games. It's what they do. They know that the world isn't egalitarian and their plans require them to lie. They have been lying about genetics since the French revolution. Marx straight up called for an end to the free press. Only the government gets an opinion.

    But what bothers me is that conservatives have adopted their own set of lies while seemingly comfortable with losing.

    I don't get the point of an opposition party that makes for lousy opposition and also believes in lying.

    You might as well at least go down telling the truth. Maybe it will inspire a proper opposition that isn't afraid of discussing reality. If you are losing then what difference does it make?

    As I said before I used to hang out with a Republican activist and privately he would admit that the GOP has to lie about race. Oh ok so everyone lies but it's only wrong when the other side does it?

    The Democrats were only couple votes away from banning AR-15s. Sure the GOP will pick up some seats this year but this is the same pattern that California followed. Eventually the Democrats will get their majority and do as they please. Then what is the response of the GOP? Well at least they didn't call us racist? All those endless debates involving dishonest arguments become pointless. So why not face reality and tell the truth like a man?

    Replies: @Jack D

    You first. Steve and Derbyshire told the truth and they were unpersoned. Not just by the Left but by “conservative” outlets like the National Review. Republicans in Washington still want to get invited to cocktail parties.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    You first. Steve and Derbyshire told the truth and they were unpersoned. Not just by the Left but by “conservative” outlets like the National Review. Republicans in Washington still want to get invited to cocktail parties.

    The harsh truth is that both parties hate both dissent and the internet.

    It makes a mockery of their carefully crafted lies that they spent decades creating.

    Both parties want to exchange in fake debate where each side knows to not cross certain lines.

    It is indeed a shame that truth tellers are excommunicated.

    Doesn't change the fact that the ship is leaking because of the internet. It put a hole in their ship that cannot be repaired and they should enjoy their cocktail parties while they can.

    Anyways the conservative bet simply didn't work. They bet that they could lie about race and capitalism while squeezing the left on values. It didn't work in California and it won't work nationally. If they had discussed race honestly after WW2 then America would be better off and Blacks included. No one seems to consider the levels of stress that are put on Blacks when they are told that they need to have equal outcomes compared to Whites because "the science" says so. Egalitarians never consider the negative effects of their lies on the people they are trying to help.

    I had a friend in education that told me the staff flat out cheated the tests. How is cheating egalitarian? Even worse was that he was absorbed into the culture and accepted it. Western society has been trying to lie about race since WW2 and it isn't working. Conservatives need to face this reality or else they will continue to be the fake opposition until liberals get their way and eliminate them from the debate entirely.

    I just don't see the point of lying. That is why I come here. I'm not a White nationalist at all and in fact am called a Jew quite a bit even though I am Germanic. I'm just sick of the lies. People in politics should be the parents in the room and face reality as it is.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  61. @John Johnson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    The typical liberal is too weak to fight back and is terrified of guns in general.
     
    Good news for the Right. Those types won’t fight us in a war, and if they tried would get wrecked.

    No it isn't good news because they vote and support the system. Liberals currently have the superior strategy and will eventually turn the country into California if nothing changes. Meaning a whole new set of gun laws. They want to limit rural Whites to basic hunting guns and make it near impossible for anyone to buy a handgun.

    The current liberal line is that AR-15s are “weapons of war” and should not be owned by civilians. Some ‘conservatives’ try to dispute that designation, but smarter ones know to “agree and amplify”: Yes, AR-15s and other guns are weapons of war, and yes, they will be kept and wielded if necessary by patriotic civilians:

    I think that is a wiser line and especially since the liberals will use the same rationale to go after other guns once they get AR-15s banned. You don't need a Glock for hunting.

    But the real solution is to put liberals on the defensive. Stop letting them pretend that race isn't a factor. Liberals are not as confident as they appear on television. If they think the race lie is threatened then they will abdicate the argument. Conservatives grant them the debate by playing nice. They don't attack the core liberal lie which is that the guns are the overriding factor. They are afraid of being called racist but this only affirms the liberal argument.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Liberals currently have the superior strategy and will eventually turn the country into California if nothing changes. Meaning a whole new set of gun laws.

    Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news: California is subject to new gun laws, courtesy of the Supreme Court. Pending cases possibly working their way to the SC include rulings against “assault rifle” bans and mag capacity limits. The current court is overturning gun laws in the Right’s favor. Take the win, Debbie Downer.

    They want to limit rural Whites to basic hunting guns and make it near impossible for anyone to buy a handgun.

    That’s cute. “They want”. Back in reality, rural and urban Whites and the rest now have it easier than ever before to own guns and carry guns of their choice.

    once they get AR-15s banned

    Won’t happen nationally. What is far more likely is that the SC will strike down local AR-15 bans in the few remaining places that maintain those bans.

    Stop letting them pretend that race isn’t a factor.

    Race is not a factor at all in the gun ‘debate’. It’s noise. At best, it’s fun sport for the Right to dunk on Blacks and scared ‘liberals’ with 13/65 posting.

    If you want to ‘own the libs’ on race, hit them on affirmative action. Rile them up by calling Blacks dumb. But implying 2A and 14th EPC are incompatible “because Blacks” is an own goal.

    Your real argument is that Blacks, being too incompetent to own guns, have revealed themselves as too incompetent to be citizens and have equal rights at all—i.e. subject to Jim Crow laws or stronger. But you’re too pussy to make that argument, or to say public conservatives should make that argument.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news: California is subject to new gun laws, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

    I read a few hundred articles a month.

    You are referring to a law that really only affects NYC and the Democrats there will be using the "sensitive areas" clause to undermine it. So after an extensive process you MIGHT get a concealed carry permit and you will have to navigate a patchwork of banned areas that will most likely include the subway.

    Pending cases possibly working their way to the SC include rulings against “assault rifle” bans and mag capacity limits.

    Possibly...maybe...possibly.

    A Democrat majority will get around any SC ruling. California nerfed their AR-15s with piecemeal laws. They also snuck in a defacto ban on new Glocks. Have you ever seen what a legal California AR-15 looks like?

    They will keep coming up with new ways to skirt the SC. All they need is the will and a majority. They don't give a damn about the constitution. They will have the option of stacking the court in fact.

    The magazine cap ruling was already reversed meaning they can implement it.

    Won’t happen nationally. What is far more likely is that the SC will strike down local AR-15 bans in the few remaining places that maintain those bans.

    If that happens then Democrats will pass their 1000% tax.

    An endless cat and mouse game that gun owners will eventually lose unless there is a change in the status quo. Gun owners have lost in California and your conservative hero Reagan started that trend because he didn't have the balls to stand up to the Black Panthers.

    Race is not a factor at all in the gun ‘debate’. It’s noise. At best, it’s fun sport for the Right to dunk on Blacks and scared ‘liberals’ with 13/65 posting.

    How is race not a factor when it correlates better than geographic location, urban density, poverty and most importantly gun ownership levels? Do tell how the most dominate correlation is just noise.

    If you want to ‘own the libs’ on race, hit them on affirmative action. Rile them up by calling Blacks dumb. But implying 2A and 14th EPC are incompatible “because Blacks” is an own goal.

    I hate both sides and the GOP fully supports affirmative action and especially in their own organization. It was Nixon that expanded affirmative action beyond levels requested by the Democrats. A strange but true secret that you won't learn about on Fox News or Con Inc websites.

    Your real argument is that Blacks, being too incompetent to own guns, have revealed themselves as too incompetent to be citizens and have equal rights at all—i.e. subject to Jim Crow laws or stronger. But you’re too pussy to make that argument, or to say public conservatives should make that argument.

    Oh I'm the pussy now for wanting to face reality as it is? I'm for intellectual honesty when trying to solve a problem. I'm tired of this ridiculous circus where both sides pretend that race isn't a factor. Steve alone makes a complete joke of million dollar think tanks on both sides that try ever so hard to hide and deny reality.

    If you value intellectual dishonesty and reality denial then head over to Fox News. Your opinion is the mainstream there. They censor any talk of race because DaddyParty doesn't think the poor little White proles should know such things. Stick to the game plan of talking about rights as if the left really gives a flying F. Maybe the left won't turn the country into California when they get their supermajority. Maybe they won't stack the court. Maybe they won't pass 1000% taxes.

    Maybe.....possibly....hopefully.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  62. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    Liberals currently have the superior strategy and will eventually turn the country into California if nothing changes. Meaning a whole new set of gun laws.
     
    Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news: California is subject to new gun laws, courtesy of the Supreme Court. Pending cases possibly working their way to the SC include rulings against “assault rifle” bans and mag capacity limits. The current court is overturning gun laws in the Right’s favor. Take the win, Debbie Downer.

    They want to limit rural Whites to basic hunting guns and make it near impossible for anyone to buy a handgun.
     
    That’s cute. “They want”. Back in reality, rural and urban Whites and the rest now have it easier than ever before to own guns and carry guns of their choice.

    once they get AR-15s banned
     
    Won’t happen nationally. What is far more likely is that the SC will strike down local AR-15 bans in the few remaining places that maintain those bans.

    Stop letting them pretend that race isn’t a factor.
     
    Race is not a factor at all in the gun ‘debate’. It’s noise. At best, it’s fun sport for the Right to dunk on Blacks and scared ‘liberals’ with 13/65 posting.

    If you want to ‘own the libs’ on race, hit them on affirmative action. Rile them up by calling Blacks dumb. But implying 2A and 14th EPC are incompatible “because Blacks” is an own goal.

    Your real argument is that Blacks, being too incompetent to own guns, have revealed themselves as too incompetent to be citizens and have equal rights at all—i.e. subject to Jim Crow laws or stronger. But you’re too pussy to make that argument, or to say public conservatives should make that argument.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news: California is subject to new gun laws, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

    I read a few hundred articles a month.

    You are referring to a law that really only affects NYC and the Democrats there will be using the “sensitive areas” clause to undermine it. So after an extensive process you MIGHT get a concealed carry permit and you will have to navigate a patchwork of banned areas that will most likely include the subway.

    Pending cases possibly working their way to the SC include rulings against “assault rifle” bans and mag capacity limits.

    Possibly…maybe…possibly.

    A Democrat majority will get around any SC ruling. California nerfed their AR-15s with piecemeal laws. They also snuck in a defacto ban on new Glocks. Have you ever seen what a legal California AR-15 looks like?

    They will keep coming up with new ways to skirt the SC. All they need is the will and a majority. They don’t give a damn about the constitution. They will have the option of stacking the court in fact.

    The magazine cap ruling was already reversed meaning they can implement it.

    Won’t happen nationally. What is far more likely is that the SC will strike down local AR-15 bans in the few remaining places that maintain those bans.

    If that happens then Democrats will pass their 1000% tax.

    An endless cat and mouse game that gun owners will eventually lose unless there is a change in the status quo. Gun owners have lost in California and your conservative hero Reagan started that trend because he didn’t have the balls to stand up to the Black Panthers.

    Race is not a factor at all in the gun ‘debate’. It’s noise. At best, it’s fun sport for the Right to dunk on Blacks and scared ‘liberals’ with 13/65 posting.

    How is race not a factor when it correlates better than geographic location, urban density, poverty and most importantly gun ownership levels? Do tell how the most dominate correlation is just noise.

    If you want to ‘own the libs’ on race, hit them on affirmative action. Rile them up by calling Blacks dumb. But implying 2A and 14th EPC are incompatible “because Blacks” is an own goal.

    I hate both sides and the GOP fully supports affirmative action and especially in their own organization. It was Nixon that expanded affirmative action beyond levels requested by the Democrats. A strange but true secret that you won’t learn about on Fox News or Con Inc websites.

    Your real argument is that Blacks, being too incompetent to own guns, have revealed themselves as too incompetent to be citizens and have equal rights at all—i.e. subject to Jim Crow laws or stronger. But you’re too pussy to make that argument, or to say public conservatives should make that argument.

    Oh I’m the pussy now for wanting to face reality as it is? I’m for intellectual honesty when trying to solve a problem. I’m tired of this ridiculous circus where both sides pretend that race isn’t a factor. Steve alone makes a complete joke of million dollar think tanks on both sides that try ever so hard to hide and deny reality.

    If you value intellectual dishonesty and reality denial then head over to Fox News. Your opinion is the mainstream there. They censor any talk of race because DaddyParty doesn’t think the poor little White proles should know such things. Stick to the game plan of talking about rights as if the left really gives a flying F. Maybe the left won’t turn the country into California when they get their supermajority. Maybe they won’t stack the court. Maybe they won’t pass 1000% taxes.

    Maybe…..possibly….hopefully.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    You are referring to a law that really only affects NYC
     
    LOL. It affects some major populous states and cities. Don’t go all Jack D on me with the easily refuted lying.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen#Impact

    While the ruling directly applied only to New York's law, legal analysts and lawmakers expected the ruling to be used to challenge the "may-issue" gun regulations in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. [e.a.]

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html

    Only about a half dozen states have similar laws to New York's -- California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- have similar regulations, but those states are comprised of some of the most densely populated cities in the country.
     

    You write:

    the Democrats there will be using the “sensitive areas” clause to undermine it. So after an extensive process you MIGHT get a concealed carry permit and you will have to navigate a patchwork of banned areas that will most likely include the subway.
     
    New York is singlehandedly leading the crusade to overturn existing gun laws. Huzzah for Hochul! Dem flailing/failing intransigence, as in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, will lead to more and more explicit SC pro-2A rulings. Gotta love it… unless, of course, you’re scared of guns.

    Tick, tock:


    Oh, shoot! Federal judge calls NY gun laws ‘unconstitutional,’ allows them for now

    https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/federal-judge-calls-ny-gun-laws-unconstitutional-while-allowing-them-to-take-effect/

    Judge calls NY gun laws unconstitutional, but lets them stand … for now

    https://gothamist.com/news/judge-calls-ny-gun-laws-unconstitutional-but-lets-them-stand-for-now
     

    You write:

    A Democrat majority will get around any SC ruling.
     
    Not with this Supreme Court. See above.

    California nerfed their AR-15s with piecemeal laws. They also snuck in a defacto ban on new Glocks. Have you ever seen what a legal California AR-15 looks like?
     
    Tick, tock. See above.

    They will keep coming up with new ways to skirt the SC. All they need is the will and a majority. They don’t give a damn about the constitution. They will have the option of stacking the court in fact.
     
    “Possibly…maybe…possibly.”

    If that happens then Democrats will pass their 1000% tax.
     
    You still seem to be confused about who runs the Supreme Court. Bruh, it ain’t the Democrats and it ain't RINOs.

    An endless cat and mouse game that gun owners will eventually lose unless there is a change in the status quo.
     
    The status quo is that combat-effective weapons and ammo are being legally stockpiled by hordes of civilians in CA and the entire country. How are gun owners losing? Details, please.

    your conservative hero Reagan
     
    Have I praised Reagan? In addition to lying, you also strawman. Cute.

    I’m for intellectual honesty
     
    LOL

    when trying to solve a problem.
     
    There is no problem with guns. You’re just playing the role of a FUD pussy.

    Now if separately, you want to inform the world with your stunning revelation that Blacks are dumb and violent, uh, guess what? Everyone already knows. Including conservatives and White flight suburban liberals.

    Smart conservatives, instead of yelling “Bring back Jim Crow!” have taken the moar guns “live and let die” approach to the Second Amendment and 14th EPC. Only bitches worry about Blacks, or Whites, or whoever, owning guns. Right now, you’re in the bitch category. I’m trying to help you get a little smarter, and less whiny FUD.


    Maybe the left won’t turn the country into California when they get their supermajority. Maybe they won’t stack the court. Maybe they won’t pass 1000% taxes.

    Maybe…..possibly….hopefully.
     

    Don’t be a pussy. Let the Supreme Court do its thing. Savor the shrieks and laments of the Hochuls. It's beautiful.
  63. @Jack D
    @John Johnson

    You first. Steve and Derbyshire told the truth and they were unpersoned. Not just by the Left but by "conservative" outlets like the National Review. Republicans in Washington still want to get invited to cocktail parties.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You first. Steve and Derbyshire told the truth and they were unpersoned. Not just by the Left but by “conservative” outlets like the National Review. Republicans in Washington still want to get invited to cocktail parties.

    The harsh truth is that both parties hate both dissent and the internet.

    It makes a mockery of their carefully crafted lies that they spent decades creating.

    Both parties want to exchange in fake debate where each side knows to not cross certain lines.

    It is indeed a shame that truth tellers are excommunicated.

    Doesn’t change the fact that the ship is leaking because of the internet. It put a hole in their ship that cannot be repaired and they should enjoy their cocktail parties while they can.

    Anyways the conservative bet simply didn’t work. They bet that they could lie about race and capitalism while squeezing the left on values. It didn’t work in California and it won’t work nationally. If they had discussed race honestly after WW2 then America would be better off and Blacks included. No one seems to consider the levels of stress that are put on Blacks when they are told that they need to have equal outcomes compared to Whites because “the science” says so. Egalitarians never consider the negative effects of their lies on the people they are trying to help.

    I had a friend in education that told me the staff flat out cheated the tests. How is cheating egalitarian? Even worse was that he was absorbed into the culture and accepted it. Western society has been trying to lie about race since WW2 and it isn’t working. Conservatives need to face this reality or else they will continue to be the fake opposition until liberals get their way and eliminate them from the debate entirely.

    I just don’t see the point of lying. That is why I come here. I’m not a White nationalist at all and in fact am called a Jew quite a bit even though I am Germanic. I’m just sick of the lies. People in politics should be the parents in the room and face reality as it is.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @John Johnson


    If they had discussed race honestly after WW2 then America would be better off and Blacks included. No one seems to consider the levels of stress that are put on Blacks when they are told that they need to have equal outcomes compared to Whites because “the science” says so. Egalitarians never consider the negative effects of their lies on the people they are trying to help.
     
    Your faux-naif style reads like a melodramatic high school sophomore who just discovered “Harrison Bergeron”:

    “Hey everybody on iSteve! OMG! Extreme egalitarianism has a dark side! Has no one ever noticed this before??? Society is making a big mistake!!!!”

  64. @John Johnson
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news: California is subject to new gun laws, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

    I read a few hundred articles a month.

    You are referring to a law that really only affects NYC and the Democrats there will be using the "sensitive areas" clause to undermine it. So after an extensive process you MIGHT get a concealed carry permit and you will have to navigate a patchwork of banned areas that will most likely include the subway.

    Pending cases possibly working their way to the SC include rulings against “assault rifle” bans and mag capacity limits.

    Possibly...maybe...possibly.

    A Democrat majority will get around any SC ruling. California nerfed their AR-15s with piecemeal laws. They also snuck in a defacto ban on new Glocks. Have you ever seen what a legal California AR-15 looks like?

    They will keep coming up with new ways to skirt the SC. All they need is the will and a majority. They don't give a damn about the constitution. They will have the option of stacking the court in fact.

    The magazine cap ruling was already reversed meaning they can implement it.

    Won’t happen nationally. What is far more likely is that the SC will strike down local AR-15 bans in the few remaining places that maintain those bans.

    If that happens then Democrats will pass their 1000% tax.

    An endless cat and mouse game that gun owners will eventually lose unless there is a change in the status quo. Gun owners have lost in California and your conservative hero Reagan started that trend because he didn't have the balls to stand up to the Black Panthers.

    Race is not a factor at all in the gun ‘debate’. It’s noise. At best, it’s fun sport for the Right to dunk on Blacks and scared ‘liberals’ with 13/65 posting.

    How is race not a factor when it correlates better than geographic location, urban density, poverty and most importantly gun ownership levels? Do tell how the most dominate correlation is just noise.

    If you want to ‘own the libs’ on race, hit them on affirmative action. Rile them up by calling Blacks dumb. But implying 2A and 14th EPC are incompatible “because Blacks” is an own goal.

    I hate both sides and the GOP fully supports affirmative action and especially in their own organization. It was Nixon that expanded affirmative action beyond levels requested by the Democrats. A strange but true secret that you won't learn about on Fox News or Con Inc websites.

    Your real argument is that Blacks, being too incompetent to own guns, have revealed themselves as too incompetent to be citizens and have equal rights at all—i.e. subject to Jim Crow laws or stronger. But you’re too pussy to make that argument, or to say public conservatives should make that argument.

    Oh I'm the pussy now for wanting to face reality as it is? I'm for intellectual honesty when trying to solve a problem. I'm tired of this ridiculous circus where both sides pretend that race isn't a factor. Steve alone makes a complete joke of million dollar think tanks on both sides that try ever so hard to hide and deny reality.

    If you value intellectual dishonesty and reality denial then head over to Fox News. Your opinion is the mainstream there. They censor any talk of race because DaddyParty doesn't think the poor little White proles should know such things. Stick to the game plan of talking about rights as if the left really gives a flying F. Maybe the left won't turn the country into California when they get their supermajority. Maybe they won't stack the court. Maybe they won't pass 1000% taxes.

    Maybe.....possibly....hopefully.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    You are referring to a law that really only affects NYC

    LOL. It affects some major populous states and cities. Don’t go all Jack D on me with the easily refuted lying.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen#Impact

    While the ruling directly applied only to New York’s law, legal analysts and lawmakers expected the ruling to be used to challenge the “may-issue” gun regulations in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. [e.a.]

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html

    Only about a half dozen states have similar laws to New York’s — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey — have similar regulations, but those states are comprised of some of the most densely populated cities in the country.

    You write:

    the Democrats there will be using the “sensitive areas” clause to undermine it. So after an extensive process you MIGHT get a concealed carry permit and you will have to navigate a patchwork of banned areas that will most likely include the subway.

    New York is singlehandedly leading the crusade to overturn existing gun laws. Huzzah for Hochul! Dem flailing/failing intransigence, as in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, will lead to more and more explicit SC pro-2A rulings. Gotta love it… unless, of course, you’re scared of guns.

    Tick, tock:

    Oh, shoot! Federal judge calls NY gun laws ‘unconstitutional,’ allows them for now

    https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/federal-judge-calls-ny-gun-laws-unconstitutional-while-allowing-them-to-take-effect/

    Judge calls NY gun laws unconstitutional, but lets them stand … for now

    https://gothamist.com/news/judge-calls-ny-gun-laws-unconstitutional-but-lets-them-stand-for-now

    You write:

    A Democrat majority will get around any SC ruling.

    Not with this Supreme Court. See above.

    California nerfed their AR-15s with piecemeal laws. They also snuck in a defacto ban on new Glocks. Have you ever seen what a legal California AR-15 looks like?

    Tick, tock. See above.

    They will keep coming up with new ways to skirt the SC. All they need is the will and a majority. They don’t give a damn about the constitution. They will have the option of stacking the court in fact.

    “Possibly…maybe…possibly.”

    If that happens then Democrats will pass their 1000% tax.

    You still seem to be confused about who runs the Supreme Court. Bruh, it ain’t the Democrats and it ain’t RINOs.

    An endless cat and mouse game that gun owners will eventually lose unless there is a change in the status quo.

    The status quo is that combat-effective weapons and ammo are being legally stockpiled by hordes of civilians in CA and the entire country. How are gun owners losing? Details, please.

    your conservative hero Reagan

    Have I praised Reagan? In addition to lying, you also strawman. Cute.

    I’m for intellectual honesty

    LOL

    when trying to solve a problem.

    There is no problem with guns. You’re just playing the role of a FUD pussy.

    Now if separately, you want to inform the world with your stunning revelation that Blacks are dumb and violent, uh, guess what? Everyone already knows. Including conservatives and White flight suburban liberals.

    Smart conservatives, instead of yelling “Bring back Jim Crow!” have taken the moar guns “live and let die” approach to the Second Amendment and 14th EPC. Only bitches worry about Blacks, or Whites, or whoever, owning guns. Right now, you’re in the bitch category. I’m trying to help you get a little smarter, and less whiny FUD.

    Maybe the left won’t turn the country into California when they get their supermajority. Maybe they won’t stack the court. Maybe they won’t pass 1000% taxes.

    Maybe…..possibly….hopefully.

    Don’t be a pussy. Let the Supreme Court do its thing. Savor the shrieks and laments of the Hochuls. It’s beautiful.

  65. @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    You first. Steve and Derbyshire told the truth and they were unpersoned. Not just by the Left but by “conservative” outlets like the National Review. Republicans in Washington still want to get invited to cocktail parties.

    The harsh truth is that both parties hate both dissent and the internet.

    It makes a mockery of their carefully crafted lies that they spent decades creating.

    Both parties want to exchange in fake debate where each side knows to not cross certain lines.

    It is indeed a shame that truth tellers are excommunicated.

    Doesn't change the fact that the ship is leaking because of the internet. It put a hole in their ship that cannot be repaired and they should enjoy their cocktail parties while they can.

    Anyways the conservative bet simply didn't work. They bet that they could lie about race and capitalism while squeezing the left on values. It didn't work in California and it won't work nationally. If they had discussed race honestly after WW2 then America would be better off and Blacks included. No one seems to consider the levels of stress that are put on Blacks when they are told that they need to have equal outcomes compared to Whites because "the science" says so. Egalitarians never consider the negative effects of their lies on the people they are trying to help.

    I had a friend in education that told me the staff flat out cheated the tests. How is cheating egalitarian? Even worse was that he was absorbed into the culture and accepted it. Western society has been trying to lie about race since WW2 and it isn't working. Conservatives need to face this reality or else they will continue to be the fake opposition until liberals get their way and eliminate them from the debate entirely.

    I just don't see the point of lying. That is why I come here. I'm not a White nationalist at all and in fact am called a Jew quite a bit even though I am Germanic. I'm just sick of the lies. People in politics should be the parents in the room and face reality as it is.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    If they had discussed race honestly after WW2 then America would be better off and Blacks included. No one seems to consider the levels of stress that are put on Blacks when they are told that they need to have equal outcomes compared to Whites because “the science” says so. Egalitarians never consider the negative effects of their lies on the people they are trying to help.

    Your faux-naif style reads like a melodramatic high school sophomore who just discovered “Harrison Bergeron”:

    “Hey everybody on iSteve! OMG! Extreme egalitarianism has a dark side! Has no one ever noticed this before??? Society is making a big mistake!!!!”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV