Conflicts over gun policy and over the meaning of the Second Amendment betray a deeper clash over intensely held competing cultural values, in which the cultural mythology of the frontiersman, often white and male, is pitted against the racial and class subaltern, African Americans in particular.All those victims of "gun violence"--and nary a victim of evil individuals who happen to share an inconvenient commonality to be found. This is one of the more intellectually dishonest screeds it has been my misfortune to read--but it was important to do so if for no other reason than to "know thy enemy."
We are dealing with an agenda-driven individual here, incubated at Berkeley and a true believer in Marxist tenets repackaged as "social justice."
It's not people like me who are trying to disarm other races. This is gravely offensive to those of us who have--for years--advocated unalienable rights for all.
[Via Of Arms and the Law]
3 comments:
I glanced at it. Let's just say she is familiar with Clayton Cramer's counterargument, and either doesn't get it or doesn't care. The crux of her counterargument is that because DC is predominantly black, the "racist roots" argument doesn't apply (see footnote 231, if you're so inclined).
How come everyone who wants "more dialogue concerning the Second Amendment" is on the side of eliminating it?
The "slaveowner vs. slaves" interpretation is a growing trend. I'd say that with many medium to large cities having black mayors, city council majorities, police chiefs and district attorneys, AND severe gun control with more desired, saying gun control is a white power trip is totally asinine. The Elites don't care what color you are or what color THEY are. Money's green and laws are black and white.
To Al Sharpton, the Sean Bell case is the Establishment vs. black people. To us, it's the Establishment vs. THE PEOPLE.
This knucklehead can't even get his history right. The "mythical" frontiersman didn't fight blacks; he fought Indians. No wonder I call it "Berserkley"
Post a Comment