Archive for April, 2006

More on Country vs. Hip-Hop Culture

April 18, 2006

Today while doing work on the computer at school, I was listening to Cross Canadian Ragweed’s self-titled cd, the purple album. Now, for those of you who don’t have this cd, lemme tell ya, it’s got some downright violent tunes on it. Examples include:

Truth be known, I could smoke you where you’re standin’,
But what kind of good would be done then?
Rip off my gloves, and do it bare handed
But then again, I’d feel better in the end
(“Don’t Need You”)

Had an eye for things a-shinin’, my pockets were not deep
She went out a-prowlin’, lookin’ for some fresher meat
Thought she was clever, I pulled up in the rear
I pulled out my Old Timer, I cut that boy from ear to ear
Yeah, she begged me not to do it, said her runnin’ days are through,
I said, I forgive you, as the bullet casings flew
Satisfaction, it locomotived through my brain
Now the walls of Huntsville, keep me under lock and chain
(“Walls of Huntsville”)

No doubt the folks who are being weaned on Rascal Flatts, Kenny Chesney and their ilk would hear that and clamp their ears in agony. “Oh my God, he’s talking about killing! I can’t let my kids listen to that!” Never mind that the music was not really aimed at kids, but that’s another post entirely. My point is, it may be that these good ole boys from Oklahoma are singing about violently killing an unfaithful or contrary lover, but you can’t, even in your wildest dreams, ever see them actually doing it. Contrast that to the kind of folks that Proof, the Notorious B.I.G, etc. ran with, and it’s quite plain to see that those folks do indeed live the violence they sing. I don’t know the guys from Cross Canadian Ragweed, but I do know the kind of folks that listen to them, and they’re all pretty good people, get up and go to work every day for an honest day’s pay, and respect their elders and all that good stuff — in other words, not the kind of folks who’d solve their marital problems (or any other kind of relationship-type problems, for that matter) with a knife or a gun. Now, granted, the so-called “hip-hop culture” has undoubtedly been quite corrupted by some bad people, but, like it or not, it is what it is — and the fact is that the members of that culture enable the worse aspects of it by continuing to finance those who promote those bad aspects. We may well have a DUI now and then, and that’s regrettable, but at least you don’t see us listening to songs that refer to our women as bitches ‘n’ ho’s, or that talk about pullin’ out a Glock nine and bustin’ a cap in somebody because they “disrespected” you. You want your culture to shine and be respected? Well, clean it up and start looking in the mirror instead of pointing out the flaws in other cultures to distract everyone!!


Try Getting Your Head Around This

April 18, 2006

Today I got this month’s issue of America’s First Freedom, my NRA member magazine, in the mail. Thumbing through it, I saw this quote from Casey Anderson, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

We’re a gun-control group, but not anti-gun.

Now, how do you reconcile this statement with the fact that this organization was originally known as The Coalition To Ban Handguns? They Want To Ban Handguns, but “we’re…not anti-gun.” That settles it…these people HAVE to be from another planet, because this defies all earthly logic. But seeing some of this character’s other statements, another saying comes to mind…
“He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed…but he is a tool!”

For Every Man A Kimber Ultra Carry-family Pistol? If Only…

April 17, 2006

Looking at the ole Sitemeter, I see someone in the vicinity of Wichita, Kansas recently came upon my site via a Dogpile web search for “Kimber Ultra Carry Shortage.” Lord have mercy, but I shudder to think of how much those are gonna be when they come off back-order, if indeed they are as the Tactical Ultra IIs are. That retail price of $800 to $989 may well look like a bargain. But if you come back, I would highly recommend you check out GunsAmerica…they might have what you’re looking for.

Bad Comparisons; or, Hey, I Got yer Culture of Firepower Right Here!

April 17, 2006

The Houston Chronicle’s Zharmer Hardimon, on the comparisons between hip-hop culture and country music culture:

Comedian Chris Rock once joked that country-music stars don’t go around shooting each other. (Though rap stars don’t seem to go around getting ticketed for DUI.)

Whoa. Is it just me, or is this comparison a little bit off? While I would never want to downplay the serious dangers posed by driving under the influence, to sit there and compare that in any way with pulling out a gun and shooting someone with malice aforethought is just disgusting. I guess some people will attempt to rationalize the poisoning of their chosen cultures any way they can, but this is just outrageous. It’s like, say, comparing Dick Cheney’s carelessness with his shotgun to some street thug walking into the local 7-11 with his Glock wondernine and blowing away the clerk for the fifty bucks in the cash register. I know that in the case of Dick Cheney’s hunting accident, his partner could well have been critically injured or killed, just as dead as the 7-11 clerk…but, of course, the law would not see the two incidents the same, as Cheney would probably have been slapped with some sort of manslaughter charge and the street thug would have gone down for capital murder. Bad comparisons aside, the gutless wonders who make up (and study) this rancid excuse of a “culture” continue to blame the guns

“How many rappers have been shot, lost a brother, lost a friend?” asks Bascunan. “How much gun violence have we heard of? It seemed pretty obvious what the problem was. Guns escalate violence.”

“Guns escalate violence.” Judas Priest, will the cop-outs never cease? Here we go yet again, blaming the inanimate object instead of the mutant holding the object. Pretty obvious what the problem was? Well, apparently not — that gun doesn’t fire itself, Scooter, no matter what the world’s would-be do-gooders try to make you think (or, in your case, actually did make you think). Makes me think of that “culture of firepower” that moronic Seattle columnist was blabbering on about. Maybe, in the case of hip-hop culture, that moniker ain’t so far off base. Consider this

Just bring who you gon’ bring on, who you gon’ swing on?
I’m King Kong, guns blow you to king-dom come
Show you machine gun funk
Sixteen m-16’s and one pump [click-clack]
The snub in my paw, shove it in your jaw

Have you runnin out this fuckin club in your drawers
We lovin the broads, there’s nothin to applaud
But fuck it it’s all good, the hood is up in The Source
It’s fight music

That, my friends, was from the esteemed deceased rapper Proof’s “Fight Music.” Or how about this, from Soulja Slim…

Ya daddy made ya?
Let’s see if he can be ya savior
When I cave ya chest in with me murder weapon
They can’t find out Smith and Wesson
Only glocks and street machines with infer beams
You know what I mean
Fully automatic things light up the scene

You think that was the “culture of firepower” he was talking about? We all know the answer to that…

Reality Bites

April 16, 2006

So I was working the other morning, when one of my co-workers — one I often shoot with — came in and handed me a copy of Guy Smith’s Gun Facts 4.0, which can be downloaded here. It’s an 80-plus page booklet of sorts that is, in the words of its introduction, “…a quick reference guide for composing arguments for debates, letters to editors, email to your representatives, and statements to the media” — a wealth of information, and thoroughly sourced at that. I would highly recommend that anyone who has even a passing doubt about the benefits of gun ownership — or the futility of any and all kinds of gun bans — download and read through it.
On page 3 of the booklet, there’s a quite revealing quote from Josh Sugarmann, the executive director of the radically, frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gun Violence Policy Center:

“You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the (gun control) movement.”

I know that had to be quite painful for him to admit. His organization has been perhaps the leading advocate of stripping Americans of their God-given rights pretty much since its inception, and in trying to reach that goal, it has propagated every kind of lie, deception, manipulation and otherwise half-truth that exists in the world of gun politics.
Yet here was an almost complete breakdown of the social order in Southern California in the aftermath of the acquittal of the police officers accused of beating motorist Rodney King, a breakdown that the police — one of the groups that the professional deception specialists at the VPC argue should be allowed to keep its guns — were almost completely unable to contain and quell for several days.
So what was to be done in the interim? The Los Angeles shopkeepers showed us, as they fended off rioters with whatever kinds of firearms they were able to get their hands on. And, of course, there were the myriad stories from the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (how about YOU LOOT, I SHOOT?), and here are just a couple of stories (h/t Zendo Deb @ TFS Magnum) of armed citizens defending themselves as the police were unable to help them, due to that inherent flaw of not being able to be everywhere at once, a flaw that gun banners of all stripes have failed to address. We may win some, we may lose some, but as long as we breathe, I like to think that incidents such as these will serve to remind people of the catastrophes that would result if we let our government attempt to disarm us. Perhaps that is optimistic, but as long as we are eternally vigilant, there remains at least a flicker of hope…

Hoplophobia and Irrationality

April 14, 2006

Is it so wrong to think ill of certain things you don’t understand?
That question came to mind this morning as I was pouring the last bit of coffee, listening to Walton and Johnson on Rock 103.7, and making the rounds on the various gun blogs I read every day. For some reason, a conversation came to mind, one I had about a year ago with a certain female from a certain very leftist-infested area of this great land. Of course, she was just as blue as she could be, in the blue-state-red-state sense, anyway. I was telling her about that first gun purchase…why did I do this? The hell if I know. I remember once a few years earlier, a question she asked me, after I showed her a story of a self-defense incident with a gun. She came back with a story of, I think it might have been, a kid who was a victim of someone else’s negligent firearm handling, and she said, “…now tell me what’s so great about having guns.”
And that one statement perfectly encapsulated her entire attitude toward firearms and firearm ownership. Just like every other stinking hoplophobe out there, she completely disregarded the benefit half of the cost-benefit analysis of firearm ownership. You know how it goes…”guns ‘r bad, m’kay?”
So anyway, we were talking about my first gun purchase, and the topic of the guy she was seeing, and at the time planned to marry, entered the conversation. She mentioned that he owned a defensive sidearm, and she said this:
“He will not have it when we have kids. This has already been discussed.”
I was just floored by that. Maybe it’s just the Texan, gun owner and avid shooter in me, but I simply cannot fathom acquiescing to that sort of demand. I never asked her outright, as I didn’t even think about it till later, but I am willing to bet what I paid for my Kimber that she probably wouldn’t even consent to going to the range with him and learning how to shoot it. I cannot even begin to fathom that level of fear of an inanimate object. I don’t know what could possess an otherwise rational person to be so irrational. This was the same person who said she would rather her daughter be raped and deal with it afterward than give her a gun and risk a rapist taking it and using it on her, no matter how that risk could be minimized with the right training and education. She’s a good person, even though our political beliefs don’t even begin to mesh, but I don’t think much of that sort of irrationality.
Once upon a time I’ll admit that, even though I’ve always been a strident advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, I was a bit apprehensive toward guns. They were loud and could be dangerous if not respected, and they kicked. Maybe that’s why I don’t remember shooting anything bigger than a .22. But somehow, by the time Buy-A-Gun Day rolled around last year, I wasn’t even thinking about that. I just dove in and started swimming. And it was quite liberating to know that if evil was visited upon me, I had a means to fight it.The quote from Jeff Cooper — who, incidentally, coined the terms hoplophobe and hoplophobia — fits perfectly here:
“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.”
How sad that so many people will, in effect, stick their fingers in their ears and say, “Leave it up to the police.” Here’s hoping for their sake and the sake of their loved ones that they never find out the hard way that the police won’t always get there in time.

Absolutism vs. Incrementalism

April 13, 2006

Recently there was a bit of a conflict between some commenters at David Codrea’s place and Kevin Baker of The Smallest Minority on partial victories (and partial defeats) in the battle to regain our gun rights. It more or less boiled down to absolutism vs. incrementalism — or, if you will, compromise vs. no compromise. I tend to lean towards the “no compromise” position, myself. While it may not be the best course of action, the fact is that any kind of compromise in the battle for gun rights means that at least some people are going to be stripped of their rights — for example, starting in 2007, Nebraskans will be able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Nebraska, but they won’t be able to carry in Omaha or Lincoln. There are those who would say that it should have been all or nothing — that either everyone gets to carry or no one gets to carry. And I’ll admit I agree…it’s absolutely unconscionable that those in charge in Omaha or Lincoln could actually get away with such a blatant usurpation of their citizens’ natural right (Yes, I know, it’s happening in many other places too, but I really expected better in a place like Nebraska.)But, here’s the thing. The pro-gun forces in the Nebraska legislature should not stop there. They should look the gun bigots in the eye and say, “This isn’t the end…we won’t stop until we get total victory.” How well that would work, I am not sure; it may well be that the gun bigot mentality is so entrenched in Omaha and Lincoln that their representatives in the Nebraska Legislature would not ever consent to lifting the ban on concealed carry there. But incrementalism really shouldn’t necessarily be thought of as a bad thing. After all, we all know the gun bigots have succeeded in eroding our gun rights over the years. And how do you think they did it? A little at a time. In increments. The same strategy could work just as well for us. We can always give ground with the intention of going back for it later — but that’s the key: going back for it later…not giving it up entirely. And that, I think, is what folks like David Codrea are worried about. I can’t blame them, as I worry about it myself, because if you keep on giving without even trying to take back, you’re just going to keep giving and giving and giving until you have nothing left. Compromise? Sure, go right ahead…with the ultimate goal of advancing a little further. They’ve taken our rights away, a little at a time. And we can get them back, a little at a time.

Another quick thanks…

April 12, 2006

to David Codrea (though a bit belated) and Firehand for linking me, and the visitors from their great sites. Once again, welcome! Pull up a chair and stay a while.

On REAL Race Traitors…

April 12, 2006

First, a little context…
Every now and then, if you’re an avid reader of the news (both traditional sources and non-traditional sources, i.e., blogs), you’ll see a prominent black American (let’s call him BA1) slandering another prominent black American (call him BA2) as a “race traitor,” more often than not because BA1 thinks BA2’s political views are not what BA1 considers as “acceptable black opinions.” Or sometimes BA1 views BA2 as, um, being an Uncle Tom, or selling out to the eeeevil White Oppressors. Recent examples include Michael Steele, the Republican lieutenant governor of Maryland, being called “Simple Sambo” and being portrayed in blackface by leftist blogger Steve Gilliard, and Harry Belafonte, whose biggest contribution to society is the “Banana Boat Song,” calling Army General and Secretary of State Colin Powell a “house slave.”
Meanwhile, real race traitors go ignored.
The support of some black organizations and so-called “black leaders” of encroachments on the natural right of self-defense is well-known. For example, you have the NAACP filing suit against various firearm manufacturers for “gun violence” in the black community — why do they always talk of “gun violence” instead of “criminal violence”? — and race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson adopting Handgun Control’s talking point that blood will run in the streets with more liberalized concealed-carry laws.
And then there’s Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams. Last year, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rep. Mark Souder sponsored a bill known as the D.C. Personal Protection Act, which aims to roll back the oppressive gun laws in our nation’s capital and thus once again respect the D.C. citizens’ natural right of self-defense. Williams called the D.C. Personal Protection Act “an insult to all the people who died in our city due to gun violence.”
Such arrogance leaves me speechless. It’s bad enough that Washington is the crime-ridden shithole it is, but for Mr. Williams — a public official who travels around his fiefdom with a contingent of armed-to-the-teeth bodyguards — to sit there and support the denial of black Washingtonians’ most fundamental right is completely beyond the pale. The use of gun laws to deny blacks this right is quite well-documented in Clayton Cramer’s paper “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”:

Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.”
…Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms.
…in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court showed that it shared this understanding that citizenship excluded blacks, and because of the relationship between citizenship and the carrying of arms:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.[ Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857)]…

…Robert Sherrill – at one time a correspondent for The Nation and a supporter of restrictive gun control laws – argued in his book The Saturday Night Special that fear of armed blacks was the major provocation of the Gun Control Act of 1968:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns to but 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 that 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. [ Robert Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special , (New York, Charterhouse: 1973), 280-91.]
Sherrill failed to provide “smoking gun” evidence for his claim, but there is no shortage of evidence of the level of fear that gripped white America in the late 1960s. The California Legislature adopted a major new arms law in 1967, for the first time prohibiting the open carry of firearms in cities. [ Assembly Office of Research, Smoking Gun: The Case For Concealed Weapon Permit Reform , (Sacramento, State of California: 1986), 6.] This law was pushed over the top by the Black Panthers demonstrating against it – by walking into the Assembly Chamber carrying “pistols, rifles, [and] at least one sawed-off shotgun.” [ “Capitol Is Invaded”, Sacramento Bee, May 2, 1967, A1, A10.] This of course pushed the law through, in spite of significant opposition from conservative Republicans such as State Senator John G. Schmitz. [ “Bill Barring Loaded Weapons In Public Clears Senate 29-7”, Sacramento Bee, July 27, 1967, A6.]
Another piece of evidence that corroborates Sherrill’s belief that both liberals and conservatives intended the Gun Control Act of 1968 as race control more than gun control has recently been found. There are strong similarities between the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1938 weapons law adopted by Nazi Germany. [ Jim Simkin and Aaron Zelman, “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny , (Milwaukee, Wisc., Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: 1992), is a highly polemical work, but it does provide the full text (in both German and English) of the various weapons laws and regulations adopted by the Weimar Republic and the Nazis from 1928 to 1938.] This is no coincidence; one of the principal authors of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut. After World War II, Dodd was assistant to the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crime trials. [ Sherrill, 67.] Shortly before the Gun Control Act of 1968 was written, Dodd asked the Library of Congress to translate the 1938 German weapons law into English – and Dodd supplied the German text to be translated. [ Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, “The War on Gun Ownership Still Goes On!”, Guns & Ammo , [May 1993], 30-31.] Dodd was not a Nazi; he had a reputation as an aggressive federal prosecutor of civil rights violations, and it seems unlikely that any sort of American Holocaust was intended. Nonetheless, it would not be surprising if Dodd found it convenient to adapt a law that had already proven its efficacy at disarming a minority group.
Today is not 1968, so when proponents of restrictive gun control insist that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting questions that should be asked today. The most obvious is, “Why should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a concealed handgun permit?” Here in California, even the state legislature’s research arm-hardly a nest of pro-gunners-has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males….
Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to promote openly racist laws, and so the question might be asked: “What is the relevance of racist gun control laws of the past?” My 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 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.

How hideously ironic that the likes of Messrs. Jackson, Sharpton and Williams support basically the very same measures that have been used throughout world history — not just here in the United States — to deny their ancestors and their brothers and sisters from being truly free. Why do they do it? Have they just swallowed the gun-banner Kool-Aid? Are they just looking for a convenient scapegoat on which to blame the myriad troubles of the black community? Have they just completely abandoned the idea of personal responsibility? Could it be all of the above? No matter what, I’ve always thought it was quite ironic that folks like me were accused of being bigoted and insensitive towards minorities (racial, sexual, religious, etc.) just because of our political beliefs, when the fact is that — when you look at what is arguably the most fundamental human right, the right of effective self-defense — it is people like me, and most if not all of my fellow gun owners, who support that right for ALL people, no matter their color, race, sex or beliefs. We’re not the ones trying to dis-empower the downtrodden — it is the people who are always pointing their fingers at us, screaming “RACIST! BIGOT!” who are doing that. And it may well always be just that way, unless the so-called “leaders” in the black and other minority communities have an outbreak of common sense and bone up on their history. But that would require them to abandon the victim mentality, and would eventually lead to the loss of their influences on their respective communities as the members of those respective communities slowly empower and lead themselves, so, unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. And it’s a damn shame, too.

Welcome New People…and Thanks…

April 11, 2006

Looking at the Sitemeter, I see quite a few folks clicked over to my humble corner of the blogosphere from the link at Kevin Baker’s site. Thanks, Kevin, for the link and the kind words, and welcome to all the visitors. Feel free to bookmark my blog, drop in and comment anytime. I hope you find my commentary to your liking. Once again, thank you!