This is a discussion on Ann Coulter on Gun Control within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; I just read this piece from conservative columnist Ann Coulter entitled " Negroes With Guns ". While I suspect that ...
Ann Coulter on Gun Control I just read this piece from conservative columnist Ann Coulter entitled "Negroes With Guns". While I suspect that most of us already know much of what she discusses, it is a worthwhile refresher.
In your next conversation with a member of any "racial minority" who supports the Democratic Party, some of these facts might be useful to you. I was unaware, for example, that the impetus for our modern gun control laws dates back to 1640. This Virginia law, the first law on gun control, forbade blacks from owning guns. From then on, until present day, it appears that Democrats were supporters of denying blacks - both slaves and freemen - their rights under the constitution. And we all know that the laws since then were not specifically aimed at the black populace, but at all Americans.
And so it goes...
NRA Life Member, US Army Veteran - 95 Bravo
"A recent police study found that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run." - Dennis Miller
They are Americans too no matter what skin colour they have...why deny them that right if they qualify, then they should have the right the whites and other cultures intermingled here in this country who are also citizens should have. My opinion and also I hope the opinion of many Americans too.
"Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
G'day and Glock
GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS
The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism.
A few years ago, I was in a Lakewood, Ohio McDonalds. An elderly cleaner there began berating me for my NRA ball cap, declaring that the NRA should be "banned". I replied that the last time organizations started getting banned, we somehow misplaced 6,000,000 Jews. His response? He "wasn't so sure that was such a bad thing".
Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman... or a Nazi.
I believe, of course that means it is my opinion, that every person who is anti gun operates on the idea that they, due to their self appointed superiority, are qualified... perhaps even destined... to control the behavior of other.. lesser.. people who do not meet their standards of what is "responsible", "appropriate", and "acceptable". These people demand that other folks do things "MY WAY!"... the very same thing every tyrant does.
Sadly this is often seen on this very website when supposed supporters of the right to bear arms start telling other folks how, when, where, why, and who... SHOULD NOT carry a gun.
I can't help but take notice of the fact that Ann Coulter is supporting Mitt Romney to the point of using her cutting sarcasm to ridicule anyone who doesn't, and Romney is the absolute worst choice Republicans could ever make if all we're considering is 2nd Amendment issues, yet we're supposed to listen to Coulter on 2nd Amendment issues? Of course she's right, gun control is without question an outgrowth of racism in America, but so is abortion, and not-so-coincidentally, Mitt Romney is the absolute worst choice for pro-lifers too. So in short, the biggest supporter of both gun control and abortion-on-demand that the Republicans have ever fielded as "the only one who can win against" whatever incumbent, has his most vocal, cutting, sarcastic and ridiculing mouthpiece trying to educate Americans on the terrible racist history of gun control, and she claims to be solidly pro-life as well. What does it say about people who claim firm stands on a given issue, but who support candidates whose track-records are completely counter to those stands? It says to me that they have no core values, and are not credible in being a teacher of either history or how best to address the problems that racism cause for society today.
I'm not knocking MilShooter for the OP, or for raising the topic of racism and gun control. I just prefer sources I can trust for my information. With that in mind, I suggest this video to get a great, easy to listen to and understand basic grasp of the issue being discussed. It's a production of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) entitled, "No Guns for Negroes." I think it's been posted here before. Not positive about that, but I've been aware of it for at least a couple of years, and refer to JPFO fairly often for source material when I'm discussing racism and/or gun control. JPFO has a good storehouse of articles and videos on a wide variety of topics relating to gun control, including a newer video called, "No Guns for Jews" in which the meme of racial and/or religious animus being the driving force behind gun control is further documented.
One thing that racism and gun control clearly shows is that "gun control" is a complete misnomer. The fact that gun control has been so thoroughly documented as being justified throughout our history as a means to limit blacks' rights serves to confirm that "gun control" is, at its core, people control, and in America, when it is called by its true name, exposes the anti-freedom basis for its institution and enforcement.
Blues
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
If you want to control the people take away their access to protect themselves. Gun control isn't about providing a safe environment for the citizens. If that was true the communities that have the strictest gun control laws would be the safest. Facts are facts and can not be disputed. The government, with the help of the main stream media, is very good about cooking numbers to push their gun control agenda. If the government really wanted to cut down on violence they would do something about crime. I'm not talking about creating more laws to turn law abiding citizens into criminals. Criminals today are not held accountable. Responsibility breeds accountability.
"You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan
Blues, I think you know that I posted the link only to open a discussion as to the origins of "gun control" and the terrible fact that it is the democratic party that has oppressed minorities through our history.Originally Posted by BluesStringer
I enjoy (sometimes) listening to Ann Coulter because she is so off-the-wall. Maybe she is exactly the type of attack-dog we (conservatives) need in order to open people's eyes.
I basically agree with your assessment of Romney, but at this point, I would vote for anyone who ran against Obama. Sure, Romney is much more liberal than I want him to be, but maybe people such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham can nudge him in the right direction. I can only hope so. Otherwise, when the next president gets to appoint 2-3 people to the Supreme Court, we're going to well-and-truly screwed with the incumbent's selections.
I had not visited "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership", but that will be my next stop. Thanks for pointing it out for us.
MilShooter
NRA Life Member, US Army Veteran - 95 Bravo
"A recent police study found that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run." - Dennis Miller
Yes, I do know that, and agree with the premise that gun control is an extension of institutionalized racism. But....
.....I cannot agree wholeheartedly with this unequivocal conclusion. It is true that Republicans can point to certain votes by legislators in which they were the majority of "Yea" votes for important civil rights legislation, but it is just as true that Republicans sat on their hands and did nothing to repeal or improve either gun control laws or civil rights abuses when they had the White House or majorities in Congress.
I don't see a lot of shades of gray in life. When I use words like "institutionalized racism," I recognize that the whole institution carries the burden of the implications of their meaning. The only way some sub-set of that institution can relieve itself of that burden is to be as consistently unequivocal in its opposition to a given injustice as the above bolded words in your quote are. I don't see that consistency from the Republican Party, so my rants against the institution of government are rarely limited to one party or the other. So I agree that gun control is an outgrowth of institutionalized racism, but do not agree that only Democrats are responsible for it.
While I wouldn't have gone as far as referring to her as an "attack-dog" before she endorsed Romney, I generally agreed that she was a reliably conservative commentator. After that endorsement though, which came very early in the primary process, I wrote her off. My idea of an "attack-dog" is more in line with Ann Barnhardt, whom, if you haven't run across it yet, is featured in this post of mine from a few days ago.
We come from fairly significant differing perspectives, MilShooter. We are both decidedly conservative, and generally believe that the Constitution means the same things, but we part ways when it comes to what can be done about the usurpations it has suffered. Just going by the above, you consider gentle, verbal "nudges" to be adequate to counter and/or reverse those usurpations. I do not. I don't believe it matters a wit anymore which party is in the White House, or who sits on the Supreme Court. We are so far gone that we are down to one Supreme Court Justice deciding what our constitutionally-protected liberties are, and what government is supposedly constitutionally authorized to do in complete contravention to what you and I both understand as the Founders' original intent. I do not believe there is any coming back from the untenable circumstance we find ourselves in now, certainly not with "nudges" from entertainers and talk-show hosts, all of whom of the ones you mentioned, I enjoy listening to, but whom I don't believe will have one thing to do with whether or not our country survives as the constitutional, representative republic it was constructed as. That republic is already dead. We're simply quibbling over what will replace it. I will never support replacing it with anything but the original blueprint, and there are literally global forces working against that, while comparatively-speaking, only a handful of unapologetic, uncompromising strict-constructionists like me willing to take a firm stand for it. Having come to the conclusion that the republic is dead, and further that there aren't enough committed Patriots to revive it, I am resigned to the reality that it doesn't matter who "wins" any elections anymore. America will be a "winner" if Romney defeats Obama in the same way that Charlie Sheen is a "winner." The word has no meaning in American political parlance anymore, except to crack-addled morons hallucinating that their very inebriation makes them "winners." Like I said, there aren't a lot of shades of gray in my life.
Blues
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Simple reminder folks the constitution was written to protect us from oppressive governments.
I agree with you on principal, however with the 2 party system we have, any 3rd party candidate who garners a significant numbers of votes, pulls those votes from the "other party candidate" usually guaranteeing the reelection of the incumbent officeholder. I'm sick and tired of not seeing politicians I can get behind enthusiastically. But, as we all know, when you get to the voting box, you must always vote for the lesser of two weevils.
War to the Knife, Knife to the hilt.
If we don't want to live in a trashy area, we all have to be willing to help pick up the trash.
Posting Permissions
138Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote