January 18, 2013

the racisty racism of racisty right-wing racists revealed!

Turns out cracking the code is easy:  if it’s said or done by someone either on the right or by some group perceived to defend right-wing causes — like, for instance, taking action to prevent executive edicts that seek to replace a legislative process, or protecting second amendment rights — it is racist.  The particular verbiage doesn’t even matter.   Hence, “nullification” is code for “state’s rights,” itself code for “ain’t no darkie going to get away with presidentin’ under my watch!,” and the NRA’s battle to protect what is written explicitly into the Bill of Rights and pertains to an unalienable right granted to individuals of any political stripe, that’s now either somehow reminiscent of Bull Connor, fire hoses, and a violent redneck culture that, under the sway of the KKK, made up the ethos of the South during the civil rights struggle, or else, you know, Nazis.

Just for the moment, leave aside the historical inaccuracies — most notably the actual history of gun control in this country, which reveals that gun restrictions were often adopted as a way to keep blacks subjugated (Charlton Heston, for instance, marched with blacks during the civil rights movement, and was famously an iconic figure for gun rights) — and concentrate on the progressive strategy here:  both the first amendment and the second amendment are under attack by leftist propagandists, and yet they set themselves up, always, as common-sense guardians of the rights guaranteed by both, be it through this new category of policing “hate speech” or sussing out for us racist “code words” or calling in the video game industry and having them answer to the Vice President; or else by setting conditions for gun ownership based on arbitrary changes to rifle cosmetics and limits to the size of cartridge carriers.

Meanwhile, what they are really doing is pushing for restrictions on individual liberty, backing unconstitutional fiats that would potentially open up mental health professionals to civil or even criminal liability if they don’t report to some government database any instance of patient behavior that could at some future time manifest itself through an act of violence (though the percentage of violent crimes committed by the mentally ill is statistically negligible, and though these mental health professionals are already compelled to report what they perceive to be imminent threats to local authorities); conferring on the AG the power to create new categories for background checks that would restrict ownership to people who appear “dangerous” (and we already know that this administration has placed right-wing constitutionalist groups among a set of potential terrorists); and directing that we spend billions in tax dollars to address a problem — an “epidemic of gun violence” or an uptick in mass shootings — that the FBI’s own criminal statistics suggests doesn’t exist.

That is, they seek to herd us, categorize us, and put us in federal databases  — and this is cheered on by the left, who in other instances scream about choice and privacy.

These are despicable, dishonorable men and women.  And as they act unconstitutionally, their claims to control me through selective prosecutions and an inequitable deployment of law (hi, David Gregory!) are, in a word, nullified.

I’m nobody’s slave.  And given the circumstances, I’m proud as hell to be an outlaw.

(h/t Mark Levin, who you can hear unload on Brokaw at TRS)

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:22am
19 comments | Trackback

Comments (19)

  1. I listen to Michael Medved in the afternoons (yeah, bit of a masochist, but I like to know what the “R” establishment is thinking …) and somehow he is able to champion the 2nd amendment but also scoff that Lefties will really “seize everyone’s guns”.

    In the midst of those points, he did say something valuable about the Left’s game plan vis a vis the “Nazi” and “Bull Conner” tropes. Medved posits that the Left is using every framing/narrative/media possible to make owning guns “shameful” akin to smoking cigarettes and being against same-sex marriage.

    The Left is trying its damnedest to demonize gun-ownership.

    Why this Jew can’t make the leap that it is possible that the Government can turn on it’s citizenry, especially considering his background, confounds me.

  2. Medved posits that the Left is using every framing/narrative/media possible to make owning guns “shameful” akin to smoking cigarettes and being against same-sex marriage.

    If it’s become so obvious that Medved can identify it, then things really have gotten out of control.

  3. These attacks will continue as long as whites keep giving the word “racist” power, by being afraid of it.

    Once we free ourselves from the fear of being called racist, all bets are off ;)

  4. [I]n the aftermath of Turner’s Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.

    Or magazines, see DC, Washington and New York now too.

  5. Meanwhile, what they are really doing is pushing for restrictions on individual liberty, backing unconstitutional fiats that would potentially open up mental health professionals to civil or even criminal liability if they don’t report to some government database any instance of patient behavior that could at some future time manifest itself through an act of violence (though the percentage of violent crimes committed by the mentally ill is statistically negligible, and though these mental health professionals are already compelled to report what they perceive to be imminent threats to local authorities); conferring on the AG the power to create new categories for background checks that would restrict ownership to people who appear “dangerous” (and we already know that this administration has placed right-wing constitutionalist groups among a set of potential terrorists);

    Again, it’s just a matter of time before “Gun Fetishism” (otherwise known as “Owning a gun” or “Wanting to own a gun”) becomes a recognized mental illness.

  6. conferring on the AG the power to create new categories for background checks that would restrict ownership to people who appear “dangerous” (and we already know that this administration has placed right-wing constitutionalist groups among a set of potential terrorists);

    A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”

    The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”

    The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
    [...]
    It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

    The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

    “While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

    I think the most “anti-federalist” force in the nation is the Federal government itself at this point in time.

  7. Whaddya know! Calypso Louie was ahead of the curve!

    geoff, I think in the present political climate, reverse racism might very well be one of the points —let whitey get to experience what it’s like to be defenseless, to live in fear of riders coming in the night.

    Besides, like the good minister says, us white folk,with all our guns, combined of course with our overly emotional natures (particularly when it comes to issues of blood lust), our indiscipline and lack of self control, if we were to even see that movie, why, we just wouldn’t be able to stop ourselves from trying to get a piece of…

    a piece of….

    a piece…

    Well, something bad would be bound to break!

  8. Wasn’t Trotsky denounced as an anti-communist?

  9. Or is this more in the line of like how the anti-defamation league is all about making sure that only the right people get defamed?

  10. live in fear of riders coming in the night

    The one constant is that the riders are always Democrats.

  11. Medved posits that the Left is using every framing/narrative/media possible to make owning guns “shameful” akin to smoking cigarettes and being against same-sex marriage.

    I really should take up smoking, just to further maximize my Complete Unacceptability to our Leftist Overlords.

    Triple-threat, baby!

  12. I wonder if doctors would bear any liability if a patient went postal and had not been reported as a potential nut? If so, wouldn’t doctors tend to favor unstable assessments?

  13. Or magazines, see DC, Washington and New York now too.

    I’m going through all my old issues of Guns and Ammo with an X-acto knife to make sure there aren’t more than seven cartridges in any magazine.

    BECAUSE OF TEH CHIDREN!

  14. Oh, here’s another creative editing trick, ala NBC and George Zimmerman

    Rep. John Barrow of Georgia is a pro-gun Democrat who touts his support for the National Rifle Association and who voiced opposition this week to President Barack Obama’s proposal for a new federal gun control scheme. Not surprisingly, this stance has made Barrow a target for anti-gun activists, and as Jim Galloway of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has just cut a new video juxtaposing Barrow’s statements in support of the Second Amendment with footage from the Sandy Hook tragedy.

    Classy, right? But the hatchet job actually gets worse. As Galloway explains at his Political Insider blog:

    Here’s the problem: The CSGV has done some selective editing in its video. In its version of the ad, Barrow displays a pistol and says:

    “Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”

    It cuts the Augusta congressman off there. How did Barrow finish the sentence in the original, and what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:

    ”…to help stop a lynching.”

    Around here, those five additional words make a big difference

  15. I wonder if doctors would bear any liability if a patient went postal and had not been reported as a potential nut?

    Ah, but under Obamacare, they’re government employees so sovereign immunity….

  16. What if the patient is a postal employee, though? Then what? I’d call it a wash.

  17. Hence, “nullification” is code for “state’s rights,” itself code for “ain’t no darkie going to get away with presidentin’ under my watch!

    Seriously? Someone needs to do their homework regarding the history of nullification. Starting, for instance, here.

  18. “Wasn’t Trotsky denounced as an anti-communist?”

    A similar trick was used to redefine National Socialism as “right-wing”.

Leave a Reply