What I said to Mayor White goes double for you:
I wonder what these constituents would say if they were provided the truth about the racist origins and continued discriminatory application of the gun control measures you promulgate? Have you told them about the Slave Codes, that would allow a black man to be whipped (or worse) for possession of any kind of weapon? Or the post-Civil War Black Codes, designed to keep the newly emancipated from obtaining the means of defense during the heyday of Klan terror?
Why don't you circulate the following Louisiana statute among a few of the churches that you get your precinct walkers from, and see what they have to say?
"No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and endorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol."
If that doesn't make an impression, why not try the following offering from Mississippi?
"No freedman, free Negro, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind..."
Oh, hell, Mayor White, let's cut to the chase and clue them in to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857):
"Protection of the ‘absolute rights of individuals' to personal security, liberty, and private property is secured in part by ‘the right of bearing arms'--which with us is . . . practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation."
Tell them how racist Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney concluded that blacks, as legal scholar and civil rights attorney Professor Don B. Kates has recorded, "could not be ‘citizens,' because if they were, they would have the right to vote, to assemble, to speak on political subjects, to travel freely, and ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.'"
Now tell them how the City of Cleveland has neither the legal obligation nor the capability to protect them, and how your police will not arrive in most life-and-death situations in time to do anything but tape off the crime scene, cover the body and take a report. Then make sure you tell them that you don't credit them with having the judgement or maturity to be entrusted with the means of personal defense, in spite of landmark peer-reviewed studies from Florida State University and the University of Chicago that conclusively demonstrate the crime-deterring, life- saving value of guns in private, law-abiding hands.
I suspect you won't tell them any of this. And, because of the unique privileges and stature that you enjoy in your position, this is especially contemptible.
To have risen to such a prestigious and powerful position speaks of many positive and remarkable characteristics that you must be blessed with, including intelligence, determination and leadership. But a true leader would use his authority to preserve, protect and champion the freedoms of those he serves. How sad, how telling, and how ultimately treasonous that you have chosen to misapply yours for your own gain.
And rather than being a leader in liberty, you have opted to become just another one of the plantation's overseers.
4 comments:
I like how he references in the article, how another enabler wishes there were something along the lines of DNA in gun control that worked as well as DNA does in forensics. Yeah, that worked real well with O.J., didn't it. And as far as him being a black, keeping other blacks unarmed and powerless in the face of crime and oppression, well, there's a tradition of that going back to Africa, with chiefs handing over unwanted members of his tribe to the Moslem slave traders. A practice in use today. Thousands of blacks are slaves today, of other blacks in Africa, right now. So no big deal, Crouch just wears a suit and preaches slavery and servitude with a computer.
Anyone know his e-mail address? I'd really REALLY like to e-mail my comment to this pitifully uninformed, inaccurate,(too lazy to think or do any sort of real journalistic research)token black flunky.
Not having realized that Crouch was a black man from reading him I would have thought he was in the vanguard of a resurgence of the KKK.
Then I saw his picture and realized he is just a coward afraid of liberty and willing to sacrifice anybody and everybody if he can get through life personally untouched by the duties and responsibilities of free men.
As reprehensible as Taney was, in this particular case he would have been right about this specific black man not being a citizen. This particular black man has surrendered any claim to citizenship, manhood, or any rights not afforded slaves.
Gee, Stanley, it's clear that, as an "authorized journalist/editorialist," you haven't exactly done your homework.
How in the world did you conclude that no one is "talking about gun control"?
There's been a plethora of books and essays written on the subject. Ever hear of the internet? It's a great research tool. Try it sometime.
The fact is, you don't want to reference them because you are a grass eating coward, content to use flawed analogies comparing highway design to government intercession on gun ownership.
Now, that's just stupid, for a lot of reasons. For instance, most modern highways are designed so that autos could typically exceed the posted speed under normal conditions by at least 20 MPH. The fact is, the government sets the velocity standards so that they can routinely relieve "speeders" of a bunch of money.
But autos actually cause a lot more deaths than guns. My brother was killed by a moron with a car, as have numerous other people. But I don't complain: "We really need to talk about this automobile problem." That would be silly - almost as silly as your latest waste of newsprint.
The fact is - lots of people drive every day, and don't kill anyone. Thus, we don't have an automobile problem, we have a problem with idiots behind the wheel.
Likewise, there are over 200 million gun owners in this country, and billions of rounds of ammo purchased and fired in guns every year. If we had an actual "gun control" problem, there would literally be no one left alive in this country.
Get a grip, Stanley. Guns are actually good things - even in your pathetic neighborhood. You rely upon the fact that the bad guys don't know who is, and is not, armed, while you are at home.
But I just read a report by a police trainer where a bunch of bikers - AKA yuppies - pulled up to their favorite bar. An armed bad guy pulled out a gun, popped off a round, hopped on one of the Harleys, and rode away. The people who watched were just like you. They were unarmed sheep. Apparently, a wolf doesn't care how many sheep are around. They're all still sheep, Stanley, just like you. But the current prevailing belief and law is that you have no right to protect your property. So gun control or no gun control, you are clearly willing to hand over any and all of your property and let armed reporters (the police) take a report and ask you if you have insurance - since they don't intend to do anything about your injury. Oh yeah, Stanley - the armed reporters carry guns TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. They have no legal obligation, and often no inclination, to protect your life, much less your property.
Oh, I almost forgot - you apparently believe that this guy would have given up his gun if only a law was on the books that made it illegal to carry a gun. He would comply with that law, while continuing to ply his trade of stealing motorcycles from the sheep.
The fact that you appear to believe that makes you, sir, an idiot. I'm surprised that you would actually pen such stupidity. BTW - you have no right to be safe. Check the Constitution, and the laws of your state. But, you do have a natural, moral, and in some jurisdictions, right to protect yourself and your family - even with a gun.
Highway construction. For Pete's sake. Gimme a break.
Post a Comment