What Gun Control is Really About

[elder999]

Is gun control really about guns? Sounds like an odd question on the surface, but it’s really right on target. In fact, the answer is: No, gun control is not really about guns. It’s about failed social programs, the destruction of the black family in America, and the rotten politicians who are responsible.

The “welfare handouts in exchange for votes” schemes began in the 1930s with Roosevelt’s New Deal, and they coincided with the beginning of the dissolution of the American black family. Although discriminated against back then, blacks had about the same percentage of intact family units as white families, and as a race black crime was about the same as white crime. Today, thanks to decades of accelerating “welfare for votes” social engineering, the black family unit in the ghetto is history (welfare checks have replaced fathers) and the black crime rate is manyfold that of whites.

The welfare checks not only destroyed the black head of household in the ghetto, but also the black family’s self respect and its ability to be self-reliant. As it does with most poor, dependent, fractured families, it lead to an increase in crime. But rather than admit their horrible mistakes in making people dependent on handouts rather than on themselves, the politicians have claimed that guns are responsible for the high crime rate in America.

The test is put to that lie by simply subtracting out minority crime statistics in America, and America is left with a crime rate that is lower than most Western European countries. This despite the fact that gun ownership among American whites is the highest in the world. The low rate of violent crimes is not just a white phenomenon either; gun crimes among middle and upper-class blacks is comparable to that of whites.

But politicians don’t want to admit they have cynically destroyed a race to take advantage of their votes, so they (and you know the politicians I’m talking about) perpetuate the myth that guns cause crime.

The original intent of the social welfare programs may have been good: create a huge welfare state that would save the poor, particularly the black poor, but I believe the real motive was to buy a huge block of votes for liberals—read that as the Democratic Party. The latter half of the plan worked fine: most poor now vote Democratic, and 95 percent of blacks do. But, as many predicted, the welfare state brought ruin to the very people it was supposed to benefit. It resulted in:

· welfare dependency that now spans generations
· the dissolution of the family
· skyrocketing crime

Much as I admit the need for social programs, and decry their curtailment under the current administration, I have to admit that they have largely failed, and were-from their inception-a mistake.

Rather than admit their mistake, politicians set out to make it taboo to point out that this nation’s bloated violent crime rate has become mostly an ethnic phenomenon. Rather than questioning their failed social programs they have chosen to blame guns. Their new mantra became, “If the guns go away, the social programs will succeed.” Never mind that the cities that have the most restrictive gun control have the highest crime rates, and that states that have loosened the requirements for concealed carry permits have seen a subsequent drop in their own crime rates.

In the meantime, the liberal media distorts the issue. If a gang of black youths do a driveby shooting in L.A. and kill several children, it’s treated as local news, but if a white high schooler shoots a fellow student in Nebraska, Iowa, or New Hampshire, it becomes national news. Why? Because the mainstream media (which is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-gun) seizes on the unusual to promote the lie that guns cause crime.

But the truth is that black youths kill more other blacks in one year than whites killed by lynching in the South in the 20 years when lynching was most common, from 1920 to 1940. After Columbine one black mother asked what all the fuss was about, saying these things happen everyday with black kids. Speaking before blacks, Rev. Jessie Jackson once said that when he’s walking alone in a city and hears footsteps coming up behind him, he hopes that, when he turns around, he’ll find a gang of white kids rather than a gang of black kids.
Here’s the truth: Guns don’t cause crime, and poverty doesn’t cause crime. But the nanny state with its destruction of the individual and the family does because this skyrocketing crime all began with the welfare state and the destruction of poor black families.

For all of his faults,Minister Louis Farrakhan sees the truth behind the dependency of blacks on white liberals. His message: Turn your backs on them, and go home and take control of your families and neighborhoods. What could be scarier to a white liberal, for whom the black vote has become like a narcotic, than for blacks to discover they should become as self-reliant as most of their white neighbors?

[Ben Bartlett]

The liberals are secretly holding back African-Americans so they can get votes? Yeesh. Now I really have heard it all.

No offense, but whatever the cause of the decline of the black family, you can't blame it solely on welfare. Whites, Hispanics, and all sorts of other people also get welfare. The reason liberals support welfare is because they honestly think it will help people, and the reason they support gun control is because they honestly think it will cause less people to die. If you disagree with either of those premises, that's fine, but to try to place it as part of some sort of conspiracy to gain black votes is, frankly, absurd. And, as a white liberal, I can tell you, the list of things scarier than blacks becoming self-reliant is very long indeed, and includes things like "fuzzy bunnies" in it.

As for why the media pays attention to middle class white kids in suburbs killing each other, but not poor black kids in the inner city... well, it has nothing to do with the media being liberal (frankly, it's only more liberal commentators, like Bob Herbert, that even point out that the latter is happening). It has to do with the fact that the people who watch the news are, primarily, middle-to-upper-class whites, and what they care about is other middle-to-upper-class whites. They don't care that black kids in the inner city are killing each other, so it doesn't make the news. That's rather sad and disturbing, but a conspiracy it ain't.

While I'm ranting, I might also point out that liberals support all kinds of programs to help make African-Americans more self-reliant, like job training and better schools. Not to mention things like available health care, so you don't have to choose between a) getting a minimum wage job, and losing your healthcare, or b) staying on welfare, and being able to do something if your kids get sick.

[wab25]

I agree 100% with you on this one. The scary question then becomes, what do they take away next, after banning guns doesn't cover, errr I mean solve their problems? They have already done away with freedom of speech. Oh you are free to speak what ever you want, so long as you agree with the liberals. What was the name of the US Colonial who got in all that trouble for saying the he believed God helped put Bush into office? He made this statement in a christian church service, and the same media that forbids the US to monitor Muslim religious services has no problem with monitoring christian religious services. Sounds a little like we are losing religious freedom as well. You can't mention the bible or god at all in school, however the children are forced to study the koran, and adopt islamic and muslim religious practices. They fail if they do not participate. Christians are not allowed to wear a cross, where muslims are allowed to wear all of their religious attire. This starts to sound like a state religion to me.

[wab25]

Ben, one thing to remember about the groups that "support" African-American rights, like the NAACP and the ACLU is that while their publically stated goals are good, if they ever actually achieved them, it would be the end of their group. That means they all lose their jobs, their income and their power. So, while they claim that they are working for equal rights for all people, that isn't what they mean. If everyone had equal rights, there would be no law suits to pay for their large homes, expensive cars and school loans.

Don't missunderstand me. I do agree that we need to work for equal rights for all people. But groups who gain money or power, because of the inequality that exists are not the best people to turn to in order to solve the problem. These groups remind me of those wicked slave owners, who used the inequality of the races to gain money and power, at the expense of the African-Americans. These groups include the NAACP, the ACLU and liberal polititians, who gain votes and therefore power due to the inequality of the races. If all races were equal, these groups would all be out of a job, and they are going to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by wab25
Ben, one thing to remember about the groups that "support" African-American rights, like the NAACP and the ACLU is that while their publically stated goals are good, if they ever actually achieved them, it would be the end of their group. That means they all lose their jobs, their income and their power. So, while they claim that they are working for equal rights for all people, that isn't what they mean. If everyone had equal rights, there would be no law suits to pay for their large homes, expensive cars and school loans.

Don't missunderstand me. I do agree that we need to work for equal rights for all people. But groups who gain money or power, because of the inequality that exists are not the best people to turn to in order to solve the problem. These groups remind me of those wicked slave owners, who used the inequality of the races to gain money and power, at the expense of the African-Americans. These groups include the NAACP, the ACLU and liberal polititians, who gain votes and therefore power due to the inequality of the races. If all races were equal, these groups would all be out of a job, and they are going to make sure that doesn't happen.

I don't know about the NAACP, but believe me, the ACLU and the liberal politicians have plenty of other issues beyond racial equality. But if everyone's going to start being so cynical, maybe I should just vote Republican. Then when people accuse me of secretly trying to screw them over, I'll reply, "Secretly? What do you mean, secretly?"

[txhapkido]

I always thought gun control was hitting your target! Years ago when I was in the ARMY if you called your weapon a "gun," you would be standing outside screaming, "This is my weapon (holding up M-16)and this is my gun (grabbing your crotch). This is for killing (M-16)and this is for fun (crotch."

[Shitoryu Dude]

Aaron - you have perfected telepathy, for I could have written most of that piece word for word. I also believe that for a white man to step forward and state what you did would result in being instantly branded a racist.

The truth of the matter IS that the Democrat party sought to buy votes with welfare, and it worked. A black person is nearly automatically presumed to be Democrat. If they aren't they are called a sellout or an Oreo and are said to be not "black enough". I have a good number of well educated, successful friends whose skin colors span the rainbow - their political views are about as hodge-podge as mine are, though only the black ones state that they have to keep their conservative views hidden from social groups consisting of members of their own race.

[Juan Perez]

I thought I was going to read about "gun control". I guess that topic didn't survive first contact.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
The liberals are secretly holding back African-Americans so they can get votes? Yeesh. Now I really have heard it all.

No offense, but whatever the cause of the decline of the black family, you can't blame it solely on welfare. Whites, Hispanics, and all sorts of other people also get welfare. The reason liberals support welfare is because they honestly think it will help people, and the reason they support gun control is because they honestly think it will cause less people to die. If you disagree with either of those premises, that's fine, but to try to place it as part of some sort of conspiracy to gain black votes is, frankly, absurd. And, as a white liberal, I can tell you, the list of things scarier than blacks becoming self-reliant is very long indeed, and includes things like "fuzzy bunnies" in it.

You're right,there are a lot of other races on welfare, but if you spent some time in ghettos you'd se a vital difference;there are multi-generational welfare families, single grandmothers whose children and grand children are on welfare.It's becomne a way of life for some people, and, sadly, most of them are not white or hispanic.

I recognize the need for welfare, but I believ it needs a great deal of humane reform. As far as the gun-control issue, those that want tit believe it will reduce crime-0and it won't. Getting rid of the welfare-state mentality of the ghetto, and truly encouraging self-sufficiency would.

[kage110]

On the subject of welfare, we have a similar problem in the UK, though - thankfully - not quite the same problem with high levels of violence (or at least homicide) - perhaps because we do not have ready access to firearms in this country?

I can't remember the source of this but I heard of a study that was done a few years ago looking at the levels of poverty in some parts of Glasgow (a city with many deprived people) and Calcutta. Now, the very poor in Glasgow had access to welfare and so had food, clothing and shelter in the form of government owned housing. The state of this housing is pretty appalling but it does come with electricity and plumbed in water supplies. They also have free medical care and free schooling even to up to university level. Not surprisingly the poor of Calcutta did not have such ready access to such services.

The highlight of the study was that the people of Glasgow suffered worse relaitve poverty - depite all the material benefits they enjoyed - than the people of Calcutta. The big thing that was missing from Glasgow was the concept of hope. Where you have generations (and in some areas we are talking about three living generations) in one family who have never worked and don't know many people who do then the idea of being able to pull your pants up and get on with life is absent (some people can manage this but they are pretty rare). In Calcutta it seemed that the people recognised that their lives were terrible but they had hope (and expectation) that their children would be better off. Give it another 10 years and things might be different in Indian but I imagine the situation in Scotland will be pretty much the same.

If you have a welfare state that does not make realistic efforts to allow and empower people to get worthwhile jobs then you are breeding trouble for your society. In my mind a welfare state is an essential parachute for everyone in society but certain groups of people have come to rely on it too heavily. However, telling people to 'get out and get a job' when there are no decent jobs makes for a nice soundbite for a politician but does not go anywhere near solving the problem.

[wab25]

==================================
I don't know about the NAACP, but believe me, the ACLU and the liberal politicians have plenty of other issues beyond racial equality. But if everyone's going to start being so cynical, maybe I should just vote Republican. Then when people accuse me of secretly trying to screw them over, I'll reply, "Secretly? What do you mean, secretly?"
==================================

You are right, these groups do have other issues. But they get the most attention the quickest when they play the race card. As soon as the race card comes out, they get publicity and power. Everyone assumes that they are the knight in shining armor here to protect the poor soul that society trampled on. We forget that it is the group and the lawyers that come away with the money and the power. These groups make their money and push there other issues on the back of playing the race card. The race card trumps everybody.

I also sort of miss how the republicans are trying to screw people. They want the people to keep the money they earn. They want people to be self-sufficiant. They want you to keep your rights as defined in the Constitution, things like bearing arms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. As a side note, these are rights that cost a lot. Many people died to give us these rights. Once you take them away, it will cost many more lives to get them back. When free speech is taken away, it binds everyone, not just republicans. When my kid can't wear a cross to school or read his bible at lunch time, I sure don't want him forced to practice Islam, by the school. I don't want my pastor to be sensored by the state during his sunday service. The liberal democrates are pushing for this. These "hate" laws they keep pushing are designed to do just that. To take away freedom of speech, to take away freedom of religion. It is already happening in Canada. They passed these "hate" laws thinking that it would help ensure equality. As soon as they were passed, Christian pastors were thrown in jail for preaching out of the bible during there sunday service. They preached the parts about homosexuality and abortion, it was labeled as "hate speech" and they were thrown in jail. They no longer have freedom of religion or freedom of speech. The same laws are coming here, being pushed by the liberal democrates. To get such laws passed, they are using blacks, the same as slave owners did. They make sure that blacks are not treated equally, they point it out and pass a law and everyones free speech is gone forever, everyones religious freedom is gone forever.

[Peter H.]

Look at the leadership of the different parties in the United states. There have only been four african-american senators, One Democrat, Carol Moseley-Braun (elected 1992), and three republicans: Edward Brooke (1967), Blanche Kelso Bruce (1875), Hiram Rhodes Revels (1870).

The first african-american on the supreme court, Clarence Thomas, was placed there by a republican, and faced a smear campaign from the oposition democrats.

When Roosevelt enacted the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, he gave the power to monitor and assits workers to the AFL, which at the time was a white only, heavily racist union.
His programs provided work for less than 25% of the unemployed in the country, and he established minimum wages based on where you lived, the areas with the largest african-american population at the time, the south and midwest had wages established at 40 and 45 cents an hour respectively. The northeast by contrast had an established minimum wage of 60 cents an hour.

All minimum wages did was help control the earning and mobility of the minorities and the poor. Even our minimum wages laws today do nothing to elevate a low income worker. Having been there for many years and living in an apartment complex and neighborhood where most people worked minimum wage jobs, I have experienced this first hand. But that is a different subject.

[wab25]

Right on Peter. If the democrates and these other groups really wanted the races to be treated equally, why not support black candidates and black judicial nominees? Why do their social programs always increase the difference between the races? Maybe it is because they need the blacks to be treated unfairly, so that they can gain power, by coming to their "rescue." Once they have the power, they can push forward their other agendas. If they actually helped out the blacks or minorities, they would lose their trump card.

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Peter H.
Look at the leadership of the different parties in the United states. There have only been four african-american senators, One Democrat, Carol Moseley-Braun (elected 1992), and three republicans: Edward Brooke (1967), Blanche Kelso Bruce (1875), Hiram Rhodes Revels (1870).

In the 1870's the Republican party was the liberal party.

[elder999]

The riots in L.A. and other communities following the acquittal of four white L.A. police officers accused of beating black motorist Rodney King were yet another symptom of a serious disease in American society. No, the disease is not racism, although I'm sure the political opportunists will try and further their power bases by exploiting the racism issue. The disease is the same one I have ranted against in the past — "Too much power in this country is now vested in our government, too little in the citizens!"

The acquittal of the four L.A. police officers was an aberrant carrying out of American justice, but it is one of many mistakes a justice system is bound to make. We have to live with it under our laws, and it did not justify the resulting riots, looting, and especially the random attacks on innocent motorists who just happened to be in the neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I sympathize with some of the rioters. Not the lawless bands of thugs who take advantage of such a situation to loot stores and burn down their own neighborhoods, but with the majority of blacks who are locked into inner city poverty without any seeming hope of ever getting out.

Let's look at the underlying causes and see how excessive government power is at the root of black poverty, powerlessness, and frustration, and how such rioting serves well the giant white bureaucracies that depend on black people's hopelessness for their existence. Start with the police. A police force is the club by which a government keeps its citizens in line. The more control a government has over its populace, the bigger the domestic police force must be, and the harsher they must respond to "lawless" behavior in communities where powerlessness has become extreme. Powerless has become extreme in L.A. and other urban black city neighborhoods. (L.A. will seem like a firecracker when New York City goes off.)

The city of L.A. is a good example to study. There, "do gooder" social engineers have created third and fourth generation welfare recipients by offering black mothers more money than their jobless husbands could provide. The result: 80% of L.A. black children grow up without a father figure in the home. They are forced to learn the ways of the world largely on the street, and if their fathers come home the cops are waiting to arrest them for failure to pay their child support payments.

It wasn't always like that. Visit a middle class black home (and there are plenty) and you'll discover that they are much the same as a white home:same culture, same values. The problem with black families in L.A., and in most urban cities, is that "do gooder" welfare bureaucrats have taken over. They've hooked blacks on welfare, promising them ever-increasing benefits if only they'll vote for politicians that keep the bureaucrats who service the welfare system fat and happy.

Having had several run-ins with L.A. cops during trips to that city, I am well aware just how much power L.A. police have over the general populace. More than in any other city I have ever been in. The problem in America is not too much crime; it's too much authority vested in government, and the police are the strong arm of that government.

Anarchy and blind rage are symptomatic of a society that feels it has no control over its government.