Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Our media, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, daily demonstrates its corruption not only by what it prints and the way it prints, but by what it omits. Where guns and the fundamental right to self-defense are concerned, there can be no legitimate reason to own a gun, and certainly no reason to carry one in public. Therefore when guns are used to save lives, there no news value in such stories. This is particularly true when criminals are forced to flee by their intended victims, or when they are killed in legitimate self-defense. If any mention of the story is made at all, the role of a gun will be hidden.

This is particularly true where the criminal is black, and to a lesser degree, Hispanic, unless said Hispanic is an illegal alien. Such stores are seldom mentioned.

Those willing to do a bit of research will quickly discover it is generally the poor in minority neighborhoods, particularly in Democrat-ruled cities, that suffer most from an inability to possess and conceal guns. Unable to properly deter criminals and protect themselves and those they love, they fall victim to criminals of the same race, who being criminals, are always able to arm themselves. Simultaneously, the political leadership of these cities is notoriously accommodating to criminals, particularly minority and illegal immigrant criminals, hamstringing the police, and leaving the vulnerable populations about which they claim to care so much, unprotected.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently appeared on the reliably shrill and Progressive The View, and soft-pedaled her opposition to private ownership of “military weapons.” She was referring to “assault weapons,” which do not exist, actually, common semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 family. She did, however, tell an interesting story, as The Blaze reports:

Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,’ she began.

‘I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late fifties, early sixties,’ she explained. ‘There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police were going to protect you.’

‘And so when White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood,’ she said, ‘my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through.’

‘I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody,’ she continued. ‘But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up.’

‘And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration,’ she said to a suddenly silent crowd.

It is particularly ironic Rice, a well-educated, intelligent woman, doesn’t recognize her father and his friends would have loved to have AR-15s with “high capacity magazines” in those dangerous days. These are precisely the kinds of arms that allow a determined few to cow, and if necessary, defeat larger numbers of racist fanatics, whose courage fortified by numbers, vanishes in the face of good men with effective weapons.

Rice’s comments suggest she recognizes the inherent racism of gun grabbers, though she seems not to recognize such people are also determined to disarm the law-abiding of any color. Historian Clayton Cramer, in 1993, wrote an indispensable article titled The Racist Roots Of Gun Control. It is an article with which everyone interested in liberty and never-ending efforts to disarm the law-abiding should be familiar. The article begins:

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws — and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics “in their place,” and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as ‘suspect ideas,’ analogous to the ‘suspect classifications’ theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Even as Rice seems able to connect the dots where the salvation of her family is concerned, she would apparently allow the government to determine which weapons normals might be allowed. Should she get her way, the number and type of such weapons would surely, and quickly, become smaller and less effective.

By all means, gentle readers, take the link and view the brief interview with Rice, and also read Cramer’s article. You may have noticed I’m writing on gun issues more then I normally do. As long as the public square is full of attempts to demonize the law-abiding and honorable, giving unlimited air time to those that would abolish the fundamental, unalienable right, without which no other right really matters, we all need to tell the truth, and expose their dangerous, tyrannical impulses in every way we can.