Race and guns

lawA STORY IN The Washington Times says the recent church murders in South Carolina have “reignited” the debate in America over race and guns.

Again?

Let me explain this mess to you. I’ll speak slowly and clearly.

First, guns. Two elements here. One is that gun ownership is in the Constitution, the law of the land for centuries. Second is that America is awash in arms. The horse is out of the barn, big-time.

If private gun ownership is made illegal now, all those guns will not dissolve. They will simply be owned illegally. And mostly bad guys will have them.

Second, race. Just one element here. Multicultural societies throughout history and around the world have been troubled, often violent, places. The only workable solution to a multicultural society is to handle it as a problem to be addressed as sensibly and kindly as possible.

The absolutely worst thing to do is encourage multiculturalism, celebrate it, put the notion on a pedestal, bow down and praise it as to a pagan god. That is, of course, precisely what America and much of Western Europe now does with perfectly predictable consequences.

Europe does it with its growing population of Mohammedans, and America does it with blacks.

The solution for Europe is to drastically reduce Mohammedan immigration and send many home because they often are not nice people.

The solution for America is to take blacks off the pedestal and treat them as any other citizen, like the regular folks they usually are.

I hope this clarification has been helpful.

35 thoughts on “Race and guns”

  1. Why are the right-wingers calling this a crime against Christians when the victims clearly were targeted because they were black? These were “regular folks” as you said…practicing their religion and doing harm to no one. Now some of these gun crazies are even calling for the right to carry arms in church…what a world…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Charles: I have not seen that. Perhaps it’s on Huffpost or Salon, places I do not go to for news.

      It was not a crime against Christians, of course. The kid is a full-bore lunatic with serious race fixations. One element to this tragedy that I do not see, so far, getting much attention is that this young crackpot’s daddy gave him a .45 automatic for his 21st birthday recently. Obviously, low IQs run in that family.

      As for carrying arms in church, perhaps the lad specifically targeted a church knowing no one would shoot back, a certainty he would not have had on a street corner in some ghetto.

      Like

    2. Charles: I just took a little time to scan the far-left “news” websites and on Media Matters, one of the most egregious, I found a lovely example of what you cited. They, even today on the top of their main page, are hooting that Fox News is calling the mass murder an attack on Christianity instead of what it actually was.

      Here — as Paul Harvey used to say — is the rest of the story. The clip that Media Matters is waving for all to see was from Fox’s morning news show, which appeared before important details of the event had come to light, literally just hours after the shootings. There was no suspect at that time, no clear motive, no nada. Since the murders took place inside a church, it was reasonable that the first thing in many minds would be that it was done by an anti-Christian nut.

      Later in that day, and certainly not up to this day, nobody on Fox or anywhere else, I imagine, was saying anti-Christianity was the murder motive. Yet Media Matters still has it at the top of their home page as if Fox News is sticking to that theory.

      Media does matter quite a bit, and it appears that is lost at Media Matters.

      It is intentionally misleading.

      Like

    1. Carole: Lizard brains. I like that, and this kid clearly possesses one. And so does his father who gifted him with the gun. As has been beautifully stated often, there is no cure for stupid.

      Like

  2. I agree with your comments regarding truly equal rights for ALL, not what we have today which are legislated greater rights against the perceived aggrieved classes. And, yes, the horse has left the barn regarding guns. The man/child who committed these murders had already broken the gun laws in his state. So much for more gun laws.

    Nonetheless, it is the inability of those who profit from this grievance class society which we have constructed, to forgo their ill-gotten legislated gains that will ensure the collapse of this once-great nation. The seeds have been sown.

    Perhaps out of our nation’s ashes a great phoenix shall arise. A new nation could begin again. One that incorporates the true tenets of freedom for all, free to live, free to choose, free to adhere to the cultural norms of their homeland. Free from the tentacles of an over-reaching government more intent on spying upon “tea-partiers” than terrorists.

    Alas, I digress…

    Like

    1. Mark: I just discovered this comment of yours from June 19 in the spam pile. My apologies. We live in an imperfect world.

      And you are correct, of course, as always.

      Like

  3. I think it is time for society to take a real close look at some of the drugs used to treat mentally disturbed individuals. Is there not a better way?

    Like

    1. Finally, someone mentioned the elephant in the room – mental illness. This kid was mentally ill and had been treated with drugs that are known to cause dangerous side effects. The problem with drugging these kids — almost all male — is that they never learn coping skills. Every last one of the young lunatics involved in these crimes has been on some sort of medication for emotional or mental disorders. Their doctors should have to alert the police so that their overly medicated patients cannot buy a gun. Also, the latest news is that the shooter bought the gun, legally, in Charleston. That is the problem with the press talking to some friend of a friend and then acting like the information they get is credible. This was not caused by racism, or guns, or the Confederate Flag, but by a mentally disturbed individual. One more thing. When you have a family member who is mentally disturbed, their is nothing you, as a parent or family member, can do about it until that person commits a crime and then everyone asks — didn’t someone know he was crazy? YES — everyone in the family knew, yet there is no way to commit that person after they are 18, or compel them to seek treatment until, finally, the treatment is a jail cell.

      Like

      1. Bonnie: Was it the 1960s or 1970s (I forget) when many — likely most — U.S. mental facilities were emptied, or nearly, due to leftist political pressure? It was part and parcel of the Flower Child days. Set them free! And they were set free. Many now roam city streets begging and hearing voices. But they are free.

        And occasionally armed and dangerous.

        Like

        1. In California in the late ’60s, Governor Reagan emptied the mental health facilities in a right-wing bid to save money. I suspect other closures had the same motivation. Most people on the left believe in treatment and believe in paying for it.

          Like

    2. Señor Gill: It’s a complicated issue. The father of my second wife was schizophrenic and spent lots of time in mental-health facilities. Once he started taking lithium he settled down and almost became normal.

      Like

  4. There have been recently a number of gun owners protecting themselves and their property by using the firearm on home intruders and burglars and carjackers in our fifth-largest city in the U.S. Has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any other sort of discrimination except that which might be discrimination against someone committing a crime against someone who owns a gun.

    Like

  5. I agree with Bonnie. The elephant in the room is mental illness, not gun control. However, in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s there were mentally ill folks, but they didn’t go around killing innocent people based on their lopsided beliefs. Intense hatred and prejudice are learned traits. People don’t pop out of the womb hating or judging others. It is passed on by others who have the same narrow focus.

    Ronnie Reagan is the president who decided to close all of the mental hospitals, sometime in the early ’80s, I believe. Too expensive to keep all those crazy folks locked up. Another asinine move that ranks right up there with his trickle down economic theories. Santorum and Graham are the two current candidates who are saying this is a crime against Christians, even when the perpetrator has confessed his real motive, getting rid of the blacks.

    Like

    1. Charles: Nice try on blaming Reagan. Doesn’t hold up, however. You inspired me to go Googling. Appears my initial memories were correct. The ever-growing trend to empty mental facilities happened mostly in the 1960s and 1970s, but it did continue on into the 1980s. There were a number of causes. Financial, as you mention. A greater trust in medications. And the “Live Free!” mentality of those decades, which formed political pressure. So, all told, there were a number of causes. It wasn’t “Reagan’s fault” any more than it later was “Bush’s fault.” Ah, you people.

      As far as Santorum and Graham blaming this event on anti-Christian sentiment, that is cuckoo.

      Like

      1. See my comment above and Google that. And “you people” is name-calling, or at the very least not up to your usual standards of politeness.

        Like

  6. The Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who deliberately crashed a plane with 150 people onboard, had undergone psychiatric treatment and had been taking dangerous SSRI psychotropic drugs which have been linked to numerous cases of mass murder and suicides.

    If the FDA was not under the total control of the pharmaceutical companies, they would not permit the use of these dangerous drugs.

    Like

      1. Is it better to institutionalize the mentally ill, where they can be fed, medicated and kept clean, or is it better to let them run wild and live in the Hooverville in my alley? I vote for the institution.
        And yes, this was a movement of the left to open the asylums and let people have the right to live crazy.
        I am sure Ronald Reagan thought Hinckley belonged in one.

        Like

        1. De-institutionalization really got under way under Jimmy Carter. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32339

          However, when Mr. Reagan went into office, the country was suffering from high inflation and high unemployment. Budgets were cut all around, and the mentally ill had no lobbyist. They were left to their own devices.

          Like

  7. “You people” indeed…I thought about this way too much today…those two words are so divisive…in any context. “You people” as in black…”You people” as in white…”You people” as in gay…”You people” as in those who think differently than you…

    As to the two points of the post…I agree…gun control is not possible at this point…far out of control….the problem is America teaching young people that other people’s lives have no value. As far as putting blacks or any other minority on a pedestal…offer proof…other than quotes from Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter…two ignorant hot babes who don’t have a whole brain between them…saludos…

    Like

    1. Charles: You and Kim might want to take a deep breath on “you people,” which I tossed out with a light heart. Yes, I know sometimes it is not used with a light heart. I think most of the time, the great majority, it’s neither here nor there, just referring to a group that the speaker does not belong to.

      Like

  8. I love people blaming Reagan for this. A more likely culprit are side effects of psychotherapeutic drugs. Most, if not all, of these shootings have occurred in the setting of the patient taking psychotropic drugs.

    Like

Comments are closed.