Saturday, October 11, 2003

Clayton Cramer & The Spoons Experience both link to this post from a blogger who shot an intruder in his home two days ago.

"About 1:25am EST on October 8th, I awoke to the sound glass breaking. It wasn't that drinking glass-breaking sound. It sounded like a window breaking. I proceeded into the family room (where I heard the sound). I peeked around the entrance and there is this guy just standing there looking around. Then I see another guy coming through the broken window. And then I noticed that the first guy is carrying a gun. Now I'm thinking at warp speed to myself, "Should I announce my presence or should I shoot?". But thinking about my family (wife and 7-month old downstairs, my 5 and 4 year old upstairs) won out. I quickly stepped out from where I was hiding and fired at the man with the gun approx. 10 feet away. He fell to the ground. I then pointed my shotgun at the broken window and I could see someone running away.
I looked at the man I shot. He was alive but in bad shape. He looked at me and said that I was lucky that I shot him since he was going to kill all of us niggers. I almost pointed my shotgun at his head and pulled the trigger. Thank God for my wife who lightly grabbed my wrist and said, "It's over baby, I called the police." All this time, my 5 and 4 year-old were watching from the balcony. They saw everything...
Come to find out that the man's motive was that he hated black people. I just moved in a little over a week ago. The neighborhood is about 70% white and 30% black but he picked me and my family."

I wish him & his family well. I am sorry that his children had to witness this, but not as sorry as I would have been for his children if their father hadn't stopped the bastard before he caused all of them harm.

His blog is S-Train Canvass & is definitely worth looking over.

Now let's examine why this man had two people attempt to break into his home & do him & his family harm:

1: They are racists.
2: He is Black.

Don't take much in this world now does it?

But fortunately even though the intruders were armed, S-Train was too.

Now according to the NAACP S-Train shouldn't have been armed, because firearms disproportionately harm the black community & all self respecting black people should disassociate themselves from these dangerous objects. Sounds like the NAACP would have been on the side of the racist bastards doesn't it? Wouldn't be the first time. Look here & scroll down for previous posts on the NAACP's lawsuit against gun makers & here for a JPFO alert on the same.

Matter of fact I see a pattern emerging. In that same link where I have previously posted about the NAACP's lawsuit I see I've also posted about Ronald Dixon who was prosecuted for possessing the gun he used to defend his familyin NYC. I've posted about Roderick Pritchett who was arrested for legally carrying a firearm in Chicago. Here I posted about William Gates who shot two armed men in the process of shooting at each other & promptly had all his weapons stolen (temporarily) by the police in Charleston, SC.

Y'all may not have noticed, but all of these men were black men attempting or merely possessing the means to defend themselves. They live in cities with a large population of black people. Yet S-Train, who lives in Detroit is the only one who was not (so far at least) subjected to further hassle. Am I implying that Mr. Dixon, Mr. Pritchett & Mr. Gates were treated badly by their respective police departments because they are black? Nope.

What I am saying is that in cities with large black populations, any person who has or uses a firearm for self defense is suspect. This is because of racism, but not racism directed, or at least instigated towards these people.

Here's how it happened:

After the War of Nothern Aggression the southern states & a few others weren't too thrilled about having large populations of newly freed slaves being able to carry arms. So they passed laws prohibiting black people from having arms. This didn't work out, so what they did was pass laws that kept either all people or at least the poor ones from having arms in theory. In practice if you were white it was cool. No cop would bust you for merely possessing a gun where prohibited. That's where permitting systems for firearms came from. A sheriff would deny all black people's permits while approving all white peoples. If you think that's history then look at the stats of concealed carry permit holders in California by race. Turns out even in places with a large black or hispanic population, relatively few black or hispanic people have permits, but quite a lot of white people do.

Fast forward to the post-civil rights movement America. Now those same laws are used to deny all people arms regardless of color. One thing that supporters of gun control abso-friggin-lutely hate is when someone brings up that gun control got its start in the states because of racism. Trust me, they can't stand it.

So places with higher populations of black people usually have stricter gun control laws or at least stricter enforcement of gun control laws. Gun owners are viewed with suspicion & distrust by the authorities. & this goes for white & black people alike.

Now most gun controllers will try to explain this away by saying that most urban areas have higher concentrations of black people than rural areas, & its the denser population which causes the (usually) higher rates of crime which make these stricter gun control laws necessary.

First of all, if that is the case, then its an ineffective solution. In the cities with the strictest gun control (D.C., NYC, Chicago, LA) the crime rates are still very damned high & not backing off disproportionately when compared to places with less restrictive gun laws. So on the surface it doesn't appear that gun control is effective in stopping the growth of the crime rate.

But the fact is that these laws are in place because of racism. 125+ year old racism, but racism nontheless. Name one place in the U.S. with a small minority population that has strict gun control laws? Name one place 125 years ago that instituted strict gun control laws that wasn't worried about newly freed black people or other minorities?

But the real question is why are these laws still in place? Easy. Cause in those respective places the government figured out a long time ago a disarmed populace is a dependant populace. & who does a dependant populace turn to for protection? The government. The reasons for stricter gun control in places with high minority populations may have been racist in the beginning, but they're completely statist now.

Here's a more detailed treatment of this subject called The Racist Roots of Gun Control written by Clayton Cramer.

An excerpt:

"Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that "they" were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery. "

And another excerpt:

"Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it."

This excerpt is from another article, called The Racist Origins of Gun Control written by Steve Ekwall:

"Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was 'passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.' [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 80) 'The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun.... The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shellgame, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.' (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972) "

Something else to ponder: why is the NAACP anti-gun? Because its the way they feel will best advance the organization. Not the people it purports to represent, but the NAACP itself. The NAACP, just like the NRA, is a self concerned entity who cares no more for the people it claims to represent than a person cares for the escalator step used to take it to another floor.

If it were up to the NAACP, black people would be disarmed & totally dependant on the government for protection. & naturally dependant on the NAACP for protection from the government.

S-Train, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Pritchett & Mr. Gates would have been disarmed & at the mercy of any attackers if the NAACP had been succesful with its agenda. They very well could have all been dead along with their families, but that would have been great publicity for the NAACP as it called for more police protection in those respective cities. Or they would have ignored it & pursued other avenues to advance its power.

It wasn't always like this. The NAACP was at one time, & for quite a long time a very effective organization who did make legitimate advances for the people it represented. But power is a strong drink & an addictive one. Tolerances are built up fast & that requires drinking deeper from that cup.

But even though they did do a lot of good work in the past, the NAACP was not the lone saviour of black americans that they'd have you believe.

There was a time when the Klu Klux Klan was a real threat to black people in certain places. What stopped the KKK? Was it litigation? Perhaps the laws passed at the urging of the NAACP & other civil rights groups? Nope. It was people oppossing the KKK with weapons. In many cases it was black people oppossing the KKK with firearms. That's right - what stopped the Klan from burning crosses in someone's yard wasn't a lawyer from the NAACP with an injunction in his hand. It was a black man who put a few ounces of buckshot into said klansmen as they were trying to bum a light. & in many cases, the NAACP of yesteryear recommeded that black people arm themselves. Back then even the NAACP realized that black people were safer when they had the means & the will to protect themselves. & it was also common knowledge that a klansman couldn't light a match with a hand full of buckshot. The people with FBI badges didn't stop the klan - free black people with Remington's did.

But todays NAACP has opted to encourage black people to be disarmed for the NAACP's ambitions. & i find it more than a little ironic that the NAACP sued the very same gunmakers whose products in the hands of black people dispursed many an attempted cross-burning or lynching.

The chances of racially motivated violence happening in most places in the U.S. is relatively low, especially compared with the odds of that happening 100 years ago. But odds are simply a form of gambling. Even if only .01 percent of all black people in the U.S. will become victims of racially motivated violence in their life, it's no comfort when you are that .01 percent. Ask S-Train how the odds would have treated him & his family if he'd have been foolish enough to play them.

I am not encouraging black people to go out, purchase a firearm, learn to shoot, become responsible for their own defense & piss off the NAACP because there's a great statistical probability that they'll individually be the target of racial violence. I encourage black people & all other categories (real or imagined) of people to do so because it's better to be prepared than to trust in the odds that no kind of violence will ever be used against them. I encourage everyone to arm themselves because that is the only way to remain free.

No comments: