April 18th, 2005 | | Posted in Uncategorized
Actually, I belong in a special category because the gun control I propose would be total and absolute. Under my plan, the number of Americans with legal possession of guns would be reduced to a few thousand, if that.
The truth is, I despise the guns and, increasingly, the people who defend their accessibility. Not even the “just for hunting†and “just for sport†arguments sway me. As a citizen of the most homicidal country on the planet –- and, not coincidentally, the highest per capita ownership of firearms –- how can I justify the human tragedies as a fair trade-off for the right to stalk game or shoot at targets?
As usual, I have much to say (especially on this topic). I will do my best to keep it short. I’ll let her continue…
Despair, rejection and aimlessness may be the motivation behind the black-on-black killing spree that has bedeviled black America since the 1980s, but, too often, guns have been the implement with which to carry out the anger, revenge and fear that flow from those deprivations.
You see how she associates every black on black murder with a gun with “Despair, rejection, and aimlessness”?
Naw sis. For starters, I would not categorize both killings of Biggie and Tupac as acts of despair, rejection, or certainly not aimless. I am only using the Biggie/Tupac case because it got the most media attention. There are thousands of cases like that one that happen every year. Mentioning the shooting of Jerome and Keith will not be of significance here because most people do not know them.
Without providing you with all of the sad statistics, I think it is fair to say that most black on black killings with a gun are not done on accident. Sure, there are the cases where a firearm was dropped or discharged by a small child who did not know any better; however, we have to admit that the greatest culprit here is immaturity (which falls back on family structure–not government rules).
Mathis goes on to make the following comment:
“The NRA claims gun ownership is not only a right but, to some degree, a responsibility.” (emphasis mine)
Naw sis, they (gun rights advocates) are not claiming anything here. They are simply stating the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If you want to read the rest of Mathis’ rant, click here.
If you have not guessed by now, I am pro gun rights. Not only that, I am just pro- Bill of Rights, Constitution, and any other founding document of this country.
Just recently, I did a search online for convicted child molesters in my community (check for the Megan’s law website for your state) and I shocked to see just how many there were WITHIN A BLOCK FROM EACH OTHER!!!!
Now I am not saying that we need to shoot down every molester that we know about in the name of “purifying” the city. That would be way out of line and unlawful. On the other hand, if I am awakened in the middle of the night by the muffled screams of one of my children and I later discover that some creep is in their room trying to stick his nasty penis inside them (just keepin’ it real ya’ll)–the gun will be used, PERIOD!!
People like Mathis want to take my RIGHT to bear arms to protect away while at the same time call for more police in the city WHILE at the same time be one of the first to call the same police officers racist if one of these police officers (who may be white) enforces the law or in cases where a cop (again, only the white cops. How many times have you seen activists raise hell about black cops who do the same thing?) has been charged with using excessive force on a black person (something that does not happen everyday as some would have us to believe).
Guns are not the problem, it is the people that use them improperly. Why should a man in a state like Wyoming have his RIGHT to carry a gun taken away from him that he uses for sport (gaming) if Jamaal of East Orange, NJ decided to use his illegally purchased gun to take someone down because of an argument? What Mathis and people who share her view refuse to acknowledge is that most guns used in black on black crimes are non-registered. That means that they were purchased illegally! Why should the people who are following the law suffer?
If Mathis and the gang wants to blot out a right of the people, then I will have no problem with the 6th Amendment being done away with as well (…the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury). While were at it, let’s just bring back the Jim Crow laws. Removing one of these rights invalidates the entire founding document. We cannot pick and choose which laws we deem appropriate.
Back in the day, black on black crime was almost unheard of. Today it is commonplace. Are we to blame founding law (which generally does not change) with cultural trends?
Mathis says something else that takes this whole issue way over the top:
In return, I asked him what the NRA was doing to help black Americans secure their right to bear arms with proper maintenance and training. He had no answer. Appropriately so, since the NRA has no such program, no such outreach and, I dare say, no such passion about “educating†the black community and improving our marksmanship.
I guess this was supposed to me a low-blow question. oooooooooooh.
Earth to Mathis: NEGROES DO NOT NEED TO BE EDUCATED ON HOW TO HANDLE A GUN. Just pick up a newspaper to see the reality. First we need someone to hand-hold us through the election process, now we need “the system” to show us how to use a gun…
Just another example of how Liberal Negroes are playing into the hands of those that want to make the US a Socialist state (Think China, the former Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.)