[Ed: Yesterday, Students for Campus Carry issued a press release regarding Antonia Okafor’s involvement in getting a campus carry bill signed into law in Texas. Here is her response.]
By Antonia Okafor
Those skeptical about my involvement with campus carry in Texas are right. The main credit for SB11 should go to orgs like TSRA, NRA, SCC and the many individual activists that helped draft and pressed legislators to vote yes for that bill.
But no, I’m not going to succumb to the lie that I took no part in organizing for the bill.
And this was made evident in early 2015 in my time as president of the UT Dallas chapter of the Network of Enlightened Women. In which our org was stopped by campus police two hours into gathering signatures of support from students for campus carry. One of our members thankfully recorded that incident. An occurrence then picked up by publications Campus Reform, The Blaze and later, Fox News.
https://www.campusreform.org/?
It was made evident when I organized those who signed the petition to be vocal on campus. Unfortunately despite that work on campus the UT Dallas student government still decided not to pass a favorable resolution. I then set my sights on working with an organization that was directly doing work in Austin.
This was all before becoming the Southwest Regional Director for SCC a few weeks after the bill finally passed. It was then that I continued my activism and moved solely to the focus of successfully implementing campus carry in Texas. Because of the way the bill was set up, many prominent universities tried to basically render the law null and void by putting so many restrictions on student gun owners that most would find it hard to carry on campus. My job was to call out and become a watchdog of sorts for every university that tried to implement such actions. I did and as a group we changed the minds of several because of it.
As a leader WITH Students for Concealed Carry, this was the bulk of my work. I did all this as an unpaid volunteer. Many times my school work and paid work suffered as a result. But the cause has always been personal for me. I have told many people before that the reason I am so passionate about the issue is because I am a survivor of sexual assault and I never want a girl to feel as defenseless or vulnerable as I did. Universities are one of the biggest gun free zones we have in this country.
Unfortunately, during my time with SCC, the leaders made it known several times that they didn’t appreciate my TV appearances on “conservative media.” Opportunities that mainly stemmed from my personal relationships and networking as my activism increased.
By that time, my story of switching parties largely because of the gun issue had spread. Shortly after, I was asked frequently to talk about my switch and my activism as a gun rights activist. I could not divorce the two things. My conservative/libertarian beliefs had a direct role in shaping my pro gun views.
And so, although it hurt me immensely that the group fired me. And that they chose to fire me while I was in my darkest moments while I was ill and unable to contact anyone for several days, I decided to turn my wounds into other people’s healing. I then shortly after decided to create an org that blended the very real problem and focus of sexual assault on college campuses( sexual assault awareness) with the conservative solution, gun rights. Those two things always coexisted and made sense together in my world. I am survivor of sexual assault and also a proud pro gun conservative, I wanted something for like-minded women. Thus, why emPOWERed exists today.
After SCC, I have continued that work with creating and building an organization focused on empowering young women to be gun rights activists on campus. The work and speeches I have made through emPOWERed and partnerships with other pro-gun groups like Clare Luce Booth Policy Center, Young Americans for Liberty, Turning Point USA and the Leadership Institute have all centered around encouraging students to take safety into their own hands and demand that their schools protect their second amendment rights-even on campus.
Since my time with SCC, I have largely focused on my heart to protect women from becoming victims. Not only preventing young women from becoming victims of actual assault but also the victimhood mentality that has plagued many in our current generation. My message preached the fact that gun rights ARE women’s rights. They are clearly for all people but they have an equalizing benefit particularly for women.
Yesterday, our Connecticut State Chair for emPOWERed sent me a picture of her passing out emPOWERed flyers and proudly holding up a poster she had made. She did all this in front of a speaking event at her school. They hosted anti-gun, March for Our Lives leader, David Hogg to speak. But Sarah made sure the pro gun student voice was heard as well!
Looking at the picture above makes me so incredibly proud. It reminds of how big this movement is and how many more voices we still need to include.
I made a similar statement almost two years ago in regards to my involvement with campus carry movement. I have never said I was solely responsible for passing campus carry. And many people involved with effort know that. Unfortunately, sometimes journalists misquote or may make it seem like I think this is the case. In my own words let me say, I do not.
But, I was an activist before and after my time with SCC. That is the truth.
My work has proven that. And a simple Google search can also prove that for those skeptical as well.
This post originally appeared at antoniaokafor.com and is reprinted here with permission.
So why did you vote for the OBama Marxist TWICE ?
People can learn and change. And many people did after voting for Obama.
Twice?
The founder of TTAG voted for Obama. I believe he said twice as well.
How about because she was 18 and 22 when she cast those votes? Or that she’s black, female, went to public school, and grew up in a leftist household headed by her mother from age five, as her father was in prison and then deported.
Her votes for Obama, given her background at that age, were essentially predestined. With that background, her triumph over those trappings while still in her twenties is the relevant story here and worthy of our respect.
JONATHAN-HOUSTON : much respect.
Ditto.
Amen
You know exactly why she voted for Obama — which had absolutely nothing to do with his stand on any issue whatsoever and everything to do with melanin
XAUN LOC . “wow ” and just what pigmentation is your skin ? And what does her skin color have to do with what she stands for ?
Nothing at all, but it had everything to do with why she voted for Obama.
Same reason I voted for Obama, most likely. When Obama first showed up on the scene, I was in my early twenties. I saw the conservative position as anti-humanitarian and thought that all their “we have to preserve the Constitition” talk was just coded language for “let’s help our rich buddies at the expense of poor minorities.” In other words, I believed everything the media said. If Obama could fix a problem by bending the rules, what did I care? The end justified the means, right?
Now, it’s worth pointing out that this all ran afoul of my strong individualist notions, my darn near religious fanaticism for liberty, and my general distrust of government. Like most people growing up in The South, whether I wanted to or not, I was exposed to the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality and the general cynicism of government that everyone outside of the inner city shares, irrespective of race, creed, etc. It’s palpable down here, and it was a part of my core being. So, my story isn’t as simple as “I didn’t discover conservatism until I was much older.” It’s more like I already was a conservative, then conservatism as a movement was maligned by the news media, educators, celebrities, etc., and I came to believe that liberal Democrats actually were the folks who most aligned with my beliefs. After all, what’s more individualistic than the party that welcomes all the damned and the dispossessed? Everyone in the Republican Party all looks the same, so how can they jibe with my independent streak? I told myself that maybe the Democrats were responsible for creating welfare dependents, but this is just a temporary measure. Those people need help from the government in order to ultimately end up being able to make it on their own. It was a necessary evil.
In short, I was young and dumb. Another thing I always believed in, even as a supposed liberal, was the Second Amendment. I never thought for a second it did anything other than confer an individual right to own guns for the purposes of resisting oppression and self defense. And it’s actually the left’s treatment of the Second Amendment that caused me to realize that I was not, nor ever truly had been, a Democrat. Since I was familiar with guns and all of the philosophical arguments for them, I could easily spot all of the specious arguments and downright lies that the Democrats routinely trotted out concerning guns. Yet my fellow Democrats all thought it made perfect sense. When I’d talk to them about the issue of guns, it would become immediately apparent that, even though they didn’t know the first thing about gun laws, how guns work, the differences between various types of guns, the history of guns, the Constitution, etc., they all shared a religious fervor for anti-gun sentiment and spewed it with unyielding blind faith. It was also apparent that they did not have any tolerance for anyone who strayed from the professions of faith.
This really made me think. I began to wonder if there were other topics about which Democrats all supposedly knew the answers to that were horrifically incorrect. Without doing any research, I just started thinking it through and identified numerous subjects where the prevailing Democrat orthodoxy was bogus, namely economics. I had studied economics as a hobby long before I got a formal education. I started to think back about all of the debates and arguments I had been in regarding economic policy where I had clearly won the debate yet had known at some level that I was just out-arguing my opponent, not making factual statements or even cogent arguments. For every subject I recognized that the Democrat position was wrong about, my gutteral reaction was to think, “Okay, maybe we’re stretching the truth on this, it’s still better than what conservatives think.” Realizing that my only real argument for the Democrat position amounted to “because Republicans are bad” was an shocking experience.
In my desire to find individualistic-minded partners who could solve what I perceived to be some very real problems, I wound up getting sucked into the penultimate engine of conformity, one where non-compliance was not tolerated. I, the supposed deep thinker, had been duped into joining a cult, essentially. What we believed in was incoherent, it didn’t actually in any way comport with my moral compass, and I found myself essentially lying to defend it, all in the name of beating back the “enemy.”
It occurred to me that I had been lied to and that I was foolish enough to fall for it. In fact, I didn’t even really know what conservatives believed, I only knew of the strawman representations made by Democrats. But what’s more is that I wasn’t taken in by any single confidence man or huckster, rather there was a concerted movement to make me think that way. I began learning about what conservatives actually believe and ultimately realized that while there were some new concepts that were previously unfamiliar to me, the majority of what they believe is what I already held dear, how my life had already been lived.
The point I’m making in all of this is that most Democrats don’t wake up saying, “I want the government to run every aspect of my life.” That is, in effect, what they believe and are striving for. However, they don’t realize it. As foolish as it sounds now, I actually thought that voting Democrat was a path to freedom from government. If we stopped war, if we helped poor people get a hand up, if we invested in infrastructure and education and all the rest, the end result was that we would set people free. In short, I was naive, foolish, and deceived. That’s why I voted for Obama, and I suspect there are many people just like me.
As I’m sure some of you guys have noticed in the comments I leave on this site (more so on other sites where I’m more vocal, mostly due to the fact that the comment form on this site is terrible), I find few things in life more rewarding than taking Democrats to the gun range. There’s one very simple reason for that; guns were the thing that first led me to realize that Democrat politicians were wrong-headed and dishonest. Their constituents generally mean well. Or, at least, they’re willing to sacrifice you for someone else they care more about, but they think of this as a noble endeavor. By showing them how everything they know about guns is wrong, it opens their eyes. I’ve helped manufacture many a new conservatarian simply by taking them to the gun range and by politely debating them on the internet. Some of them are fanatics who can never be changed. Others, like me, just needed to be mugged by reality. I don’t know Antonia Okafor (other than I show her to my daughters as an example of someone they should look up to and respect), but I’d venture a guess that when she was sexually assaulted and then learned that her usefulness to the Democrats, the ones who supposedly care the most about sexual assault victims, was as a mascot and that they didn’t actually want her to be able to protect herself, it was probably an eye-opening experience. But learning that your favored political party is full of it is not an overnight realization and you’re probably going to vote for some tool bags before your transition is complete. That probably had something to do with her voting for Obama. You folks in your 40s, 50s, and 60s have the advantage that you’ve got more experience with the government being terrible at everything. People in my age range (and I think I’m only a few years older than Antonia Okafor) had to learn the hard way, and our hard way was Obama.
Bravo!
Thank God for people like this.
Who she voted for is not the issue. I am happy that she is NOW pro-gun. No matter what she was, the important thing is what she is today. Hang in there young lady…..
Maybe if she is ignored she will go away. There is a lot of self promotion and oh poor me whining in her statement. I would like to see some independent confirmation of her claims.
She is not going to go away. Why should she ? Have some semblance of respect for the young lady. After all , are we not all fighting for our 2A right’s ? I for one would much rather stand with Antonia Okafor , than the David Hogg’s of this country.
FYI:
Black women are the fastest-growing segment of the gun-buying population.
https://www.wral.com/gun-ownership-growing-number-of-black-women-getting-firearms-stats-show/17482447/
I’m a cracker and I’m ALL for more
black women owning guns!
some truth to that…their presence is becoming common at ccw classes…
She would have had written a book to proof all she said.
Wow, that reply makes the previous post by SCC seem even more petty and childish.
1. Her reply neither rebuts anything in SCC’s release nor addresses the objectively false statements she has made over the years.
2. Neither you nor anybody else has yet to point to a single statement from SCC’s release and explain why you believe the statement is “petty” or “childish.” You’re simply using these vague epithets to deflect attention from SCC’s legitimate criticism of Ms. Okafor.
I see you didn’t include any citations either.
Citations of what? What claims, accusations, or assertions have I made that require a citation?
If you’re hungry for citations, SCC’s press release is chock-full of them.
NOTE: My statement includes a mistyped sentence. I wrote “has yet to point” when I should have written “has yet pointed to.”
“nor addresses the objectively false statements she has made over the years” sure looks unsubstantiated.
Felix, if you’re not going to read the documents at issue, it’s going to be really hard for us to have a discussion about them.
The release and attached essay list numerous false statements she has made. Those are the accusations she’s presumably responding to in this statement. After all, calling out those lies was the whole point of SCC’s press release.
Her response basically says, “Sure, SCC passed campus carry, but I gathered signatures for a petition to my student government, so I kind of helped,” but she doesn’t address the fact that she has repeatedly claimed SHE passed campus carry and that she has repeatedly misled the public about when she became SCC’s Southwest regional director (a role she took on AFTER the bill passed). It also doesn’t address the fact that she has repeatedly lied about being a college student (she hasn’t been in school for three years), lied about having a graduate degree (she dropped out of graduate school), lied about when and how she was motivated to leave the Democratic party (her Prager-U video cites an essay that was published ten months after she was sworn in as a Republican Party precinct chair), lied about what motivated her to buy a gun and get involved with SCC (in an op-ed for The New York Times, she claims that a concerned local firearms instructor gave her some free training after she had a run-in with a cyber stalker, an incident that occurred eight months after she joined SCC), etc., etc., etc.
So yeah, my claims are pretty friggin substantiated, at least to anyone who bothered to read the documents we’re discussing.
Awesome! I was waiting for you to show up here and tell me my opinion is weak because you don’t like it and your opinion is more valid. Sounds like a very emotional response, but that’s pretty much what I’ve come to expect from the current crop of college students. By the way, I don’t care about the validity of either of your arguments. I lost respect for SCC back when I was in college and the local chapter was basically made up of every red neck, gun toting stereotype the antics paint us with.
Oh, this is rich. You tell me my response is too emotional and then note that you don’t care about the validity of SCC’s arguments because the SCC chapter on your particular campus was too “red neck” and stereotypical for your tastes.
I’m going to have to invite Ben Shapiro down here to recite his famous “The facts don’t care about your feelings,” line.
Seriously, most of you rushing to Ms. Okafor’s defense sound like you could use a safe space. SCC issued a statement of fact, and the criticism of it can be summed up as, “Why are you so hung up on the truth when she’s so pretty and clearly likes guns? Criticism directed inward makes us sad! Can’t we all just get along?”
For the record, Brandon, your opinion isn’t weak because I don’t like. It’s weak because you can’t support it with examples of the types of comments you deem to be “petty and childish” and explanations of why you find those comments to be “petty and childish.” An opinion that can’t be defended is the definition of a weak opinion.
Your accusations of being “petty and childish” are nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to shut down a debate in which you have no other argument to make.
Honestly, 100% truth here, I just wanted to stir the pot and rile things up because you’ve been running around the last few days in such a frenzy getting so worked up in the comments section. I hadn’t even heard of this woman before yesterday. I just thought that the tone of the press release, and subsequent comments were so childish sounding that I had to mix it a little more. I believe that you said yesterday that this is a comments section in a blog and you aren’t required to substantiate anything. I feel the same way. I expressed an opinion about a subject that my emotional investment in starts and stops with a few blog posts. It obviously runs much deeper for you and your blood pressure seems to be steadily rising over all of this. Please don’t have a stroke.
As to your organization, I firmly believe in campus carry, but the chapter that I visited roughly 9 years ago at my university really turned me off to you guys. It was very much an echo chamber with no room for suggestions. Additionally, I looked around the room and saw far too many Confederate flags on shirts and way too much Obama/liberal hating. Before you jump to conclusions let me clarify: I don’t care what you wear, and I’m not a fan of Obama or the liberal agenda, but I was looking for what was supposedly an organization focused on one specific issue: Campus carry. So yes, the exposure that I had first hand to SCC was very much the stereotype that anti gunners paint of us and I decided that I didn’t care to join it. Since you accused me of reacting emotionally to SCC you must have personal knowledge of how every chapter is run and truly believe they are all perfect. Good for you, keep telling yourself that.
Regarding your references about critical thinking and reading comprehension: I don’t care what you think, just keep on resorting to the same personal attacks that you accuse the rest of us of making. My reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities have landed me a very lucrative profession and a comfortable life. I just don’t care enough about your organization and it’s bickering with some random woman to invest my time and energy to look anything up.
Brandon, if you can point to where I said I’m not required to substantiate what I say because this is just the comments section of a blog, I’ll buy you anything available for sale at your local gun store. Just point to the post where I said that, and it’s an early Christmas for you. Of course, you know as well as I do that I didn’t say anything like that.
I also never challenged your claim that you visited an SCC chapter that reflected poorly on the organization and the movement. At the national level, SCC has always been vehemently nonpartisan and actively worked to keep things like confederate flag hats and “vote from the rooftops” T-shirts and other such crap from its meetings, events, etc. However, that sort of vetting requires effort, and it’s entirely possible that your campus chapter was run by people who didn’t want to put in the effort.
What I DID challenge was your assertion that you dismissed SCC’s claims (and supporting evidence) about Ms. Okafor because you were turned off by one chapter some years ago. That sort of ad hominem argument reeks of a feelings-over-facts mindset (the very type for which YOU expressed disdain) and has no place in intellectual discourse.
Finally, I’ll note that you wrote an almost 400-word response (basically a short op-ed) explaining why you don’t care enough to explain why you think SCC’s press release was childish. Again, your words don’t speak very highly of your critical thinking skills, but congratulations on your “very lucrative profession” and “comfortable life.” That must be a real feather in your cap.
Brandon, love it. The SCC is going from “not on the radar” to “bunch of whiny losers” at record speed.
Definitely, the SCC is showing off a lot of butt hurt over nothing. I’ve barely heard of the group but they’re making themselves look really foolish.
1. Google “Former.” I don’t represent SCC. I’m just a dude telling other dudes that their arguments are weak.
2. You haven’t pointed to anything “foolish” (or “childish” or “petty”) in SCC’s statement. Your problem isn’t with how they said it; it’s with what they said. But you’re not equipped to rebut what they said, so you’ve resorted to meaningless criticism of how they said it.
3. By claiming that she, a hyper-partisan, anti-intellectual narcissist, is responsible for the accomplishments of a non-partisan collection of intellectual students who were content to work anonymously behind the scenes, Ms. Okafor undermines the credibility of both the campus carry movement and the law it passed in Texas.
It’s like if your cardiologist told you your new pacemaker was built as part of some sixth-grader’s science project. You might start wondering if it’s really as well thought out as it should be.
4. Questions of credibility aside, taking credit for the hard work and sacrifices of others is not “nothing.” If I gave a bunch of interviews in which I claimed that Facebook was my brainchild, nobody would say that Mark Zuckerberg was being childish for putting out a statement to the contrary.
You’re reading an astounding amount into my short comment. Stop projecting your issues.
Google “butt hurt”, you and SCC have it bad.
Strong response there, Eric. Nothing epitomizes a well-reasoned argument like doubling down on the use of “butt hurt.”
If the shoe fits… 🙂
Yo, Mr Former! What kinda drugs are you on? You are running wild like a methhead just crazy to set us all straight on a subject we do not give a shit about. I credit the TSRA and the Texas Legislature for campus carry, and the governor for signing it, you, I could not care less about, why aren’t you busy with a *JOB*?
For someone who doesn’t care, you keep coming back to this article to check the comments a lot, Larry.
It comes as a surprise to consumers that the mainstream media is actually the head of the Democrat Party. One of the most important things Trump is doing is hammering this home whenever he has the chance.
Okafor and many others are being enlightened about conservatism for the first time.
Would you vote for people who trust you to have millions of firearms in your possession? Or people who want to be the only ones with the power? Many people are thinking about this for the first time.
That’s what I’m seeing. Folks on the left or moderates are sloooowly waking up to the left media’s BS.
Totally lost count of how many times the words “Me”, “My”, “Myself” and “I” were used in that response.
🤠
Yep, the egregiously self centered, entitlement culture will not be denied.
How would you reply to an op ed about you and your work without talking about you and your work?
Djm , good point !!
These are approximate numbers –
ME 7
MYSELF 0
I 28
MY 26
You’re welcome. 🙂
that’s a feminine trait that’s actually quite common…
Kudos to you young Lady. Steve Eisenberg is correct ” who would you vote for ? ” if one does not stand for our second Amendment Right’s , they should sit down and shut the hell up !!
So Alice Cooper was right. You can’t go to school because you’ve not got a gun.
School’s out forever.
This os a great statement and I applaud her for making it. Rather than trying to tear down other groups, even when we have differences, it’s important to remember than we’re all important to the push for gun rights and I’m glad that she didn’t take this opportunity to snipe at other groups who didn’t show her the same curiosity.
What courtesy did they owe her? The courtesy to let her keep taking credit for the hard work and sacrifices of others?
I bet you’re a big supporter of those guys who wear fake military uniforms to bars, to try to get free drinks.
Honestly, my friend, I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but you’re coming across as a zealot and a pedant. I’m not trying to disrespect you or even to say your feelings are misplaced. But please believe me when I tell you that you’re doing more harm than good.
Also, thanks for your work on campus carry. Much obliged.
Cory, you are probably right; however, I honestly don’t care how my words are interpreted by intellectually stunted blowhards more concerned with my attitude than with the facts. I neither expect nor care to win the support of the hyperpartisan ideologues who fawn over any pretty girl with a gun, lash out at articles they haven’t read, and argue that supporters of gun rights should never criticize one another.
The evidence that Antonia Okafor is an ill-informed narcissist who has risen to semi-prominence by attaching herself to the hard work of others is overwhelming. The cretins who rushed to defend her and/or attack SCC without first bothering to review that evidence will never change their minds; however, responding to them affords me an opportunity to reach the people who aren’t yet sure what to believe.
Put another way, my comments are for the people looking for answers, not the people looking for a fight. If my tone is condescending, it is both deservedly and irrelevantly so. I’m speaking to the people who prioritize truth over tone.
Why are people who are pro-gun sniping at each other?
Posters here snipe each other all day long.
Oh, go soak your head.
The proper thing would be to have duels.
find that curious, also….
Sounds like a bunch of kids who spent their time at UT protesting and fussing about one thing or another rather than studying, now don’t have the record to get a job. So, obviously, more fussing and fuming about things which make not a whit of difference, as opposed to trying to figure out how to get that damn JOB! Do y’all still live in mommy’s basement?
Yes, Larry, clearly I’m a jobless bum because I’m not at work on Saturday.
Despite all of your talk about maturity and intellect, the most intellectual rebuttal you can offer boils down to “too long, didn’t read, don’t care anyway,” and you’re not above resorting to baseless conjecture/speculation about the people with whom you disagree (i.e., I probably can’t get a job, and Lupe Valdez probably sold her gun for cash).
At least SCC’s criticism of Ms. Okafor is based in FACT.
Better articulated than ANYTHING I’ve heard coming from the college communists. Unless someone has something factual and true to say about this and not using the issues as a lame excuse about who did what and how often. How about we all just give the WHOLE Constitution a try and absent something constructive to say we just let this work itself out. OK? -30-
“Who did what and how often” is pretty much the textbook definition of “factual.”
Pointing out that someone has repeatedly made verifiably false statements IS factual.
“I did not!” “Yes you did!” “You can’t prove it!” “Nanny-nanny boo-boo!” “I know you are, but what am I?” Grow up, kid, and get a life. I betcha if I read that bill, neither of your names are on it, your miniscule impact has been forgotten, credit goes to TX legislators and governor. Nothing to see here, move along, and take your hurted feels with you.
Well, Larry, SCC actually *did* prove its assertions (that’s what all the links are for), so it’s not so much a case of he said/she said as a case of Ms. Okafor lying, SCC proving she lied, and a bunch of middle-aged ammosexuals getting their camouflaged panties in a bunch because SCC dared to criticize their favorite pinup girl.
And for the record, the Texas State Rifle Association (whom you previously credited with getting Texas’s campus carry law passed) credited SCC with being one of the driving forces behind the bill:
https://youtu.be/rp7B_TCIpYY
https://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/mock-mass-shooting-on-ut-campus-texas/#axzz4xyrP1a8M
I do not understand all of the incomplete sentences. Send her for some remedial grammar lessons. Or has English I (which I thankfully placed out of back in the day) not taught any more? Sorry, but the bad English seriously detracts from the message.
SCC is vindicated by this admission. And after reading this, I now have no doubt a formal press release was needed to address her behavior.
Just to be clear, her justification for repeatedly misstating her involvement with SCC and claiming credit for the passage of SB 11 is that, after SB 11 had already passed out of the Texas Senate and was awaiting a vote in the Texas House, she attempted to gather signatures at UT-Dallas, for a petition submitted only to the UTD student government, which ultimately voted to oppose campus carry anyway.
Compare that rather modest claim to this news summary of a November 15 speech she gave at the University of Central Florida:
“In 2015, Okafor was the Southwest director of students for concealed carry in Texas. She said she helped create and pass the campus carry law, which allows university students to carry a concealed weapon on campus.”
Or this March 23 tweet she sent, defending herself against someone who had criticized her inclusion on a list of prominent female conservatives:
“Um okay bud. When you pass legislation so that college women are able to defend themselves in Texas and continue to fight for that right nationwide on your own dime then I think you can make that determination as to who is ‘worthy’ of such a title or not.”
Or this October 25, 2017, interview she gave to a student reporter at the University of Kansas:
“I’ve been following, especially after our time with my group when I was with Students for Concealed Carry and I was passing the law in Texas, Kansas is really the place to watch because of the fact that the people who are anti-campus carry are really trying hard to reverse the decision almost.”
Or this bizarre exchange from CPAC 2017: https://youtu.be/GBXkrrrStp8?t=580
So, if we all (100%) believe your story, what does that get you? How about none of us believe it, what does that cost you? Why the fuck should we care, and why do YOU?
Please, Larry, make some more posts about how nobody should care one way or the other. That’s definitely helping your case.
Well said Ma’am! You have our respect and admiration. God bless you!
Okafor is in her mid-20s. She has a lot of growing up to do, just as I did at that age.
The current powers-that-be at SCC are apparently suffering from the same lack of maturity.
This little childish battle for credit is every bit as newsworthy as a pair of 3-yr-olds fighting over a piece of candy. They all need to be spanked and sent to separate rooms, and the adults involved in pro-2A media would do well to deny them the attention they so desperately seek.
She is almost 29, and it’s pretty ironic that a woman who has built her career on the assumption that college students are mature enough to carry guns is now being defended on the basis that a 28-year-old is not mature enough to tell the truth.
If you see nothing wrong with someone building a career on a bedrock of lies and taking credit for the hard work and sacrifices of others, that’s your business, and I’m sure there are a lot of lying politicians and pundits (the ones who lied about their military service, their education, etc.) who would like to shake your hand and thank you for your support. But quit acting like SCC is in the wrong for telling the truth.
Your comparison of her claims to stolen military valor is yet another example of immature behavior. It’s laughable.
She hasn’t built a career. As far as we know, she hasn’t used her imaginary accomplishments to get a job, get elected, or get accepted at any school.
Go back to educating people about the importance of self-defense, and put this sophomoric squabble behind you.
Did you actually read SCC’s press release? Did you check out the linked articles? She has used her false claims to get colleges to pay her exorbitant speaking fees. She has bamboozled prominent organizations into funding speaking tours for her. She’s used her subsequent notoriety as the self-proclaimed “face of the modern gun rights movement” to appear in music videos and advertising campaigns. She has a website where she sells T-shirts with pictures of herself on them.
She is a gold-digging narcissist, and if you don’t see the parallels between falsely claiming military service for personal gain and falsely claiming political service for personal gain, our disconnect isn’t the result of on one of us having a lack of maturity; it’s the result of one of us having a lack of intellect.
Mr Former, do you get money for clicks on your precious web site? Why the HELL would any of us go there to research a past success which no longer requires any attention? And 28 is “mid 20s”, just as the man said, you are children. Come back when you have accomplished something. What you say about intellect may be correct, but for onlookers to choose, you have not shown any maturity or intellect here. You continue to sound like a spoiled child who did not get all the candy.
So you don’t care enough to actually READ the article you’re talking about, but you do care enough to write hundreds of words in the comments section?
You’re one of those guys who shares articles on Facebook without actually reading them first, aren’t you?
“What does that say? Obama is coming to take my guns? I’d better get this out to my twenty-three followers ASAP. No time to stop and read!”
Let me explain how ages/numbers work: 21-23 = EARLY twenties. 24-26 = MID twenties. 27-29 = LATE twenties.
And I really don’t need advice on maturity from the guy who described Lupe Valdez as looking like “police sausage” and suggested, without any evidence whatsoever, that she illegally sold her missing sidearm. You only have a problem with snarky comments and unsubstantiated allegations when they’re directed at YOUR side.
She’s good looking and she’s armed. What’s not to like?
That certainly seems to be how most of the gun rights community sees it.
Demographics rule supreme in 2018. We need young, black, attractive women to counter the stereotype of old, white, fat men being the only gun owners. I’m sorry that her getting, and obviously gladly taking credit for a group effort offends you greatly but tearing each other apart us not going to help anyone here.
I think your statement is idiotic. We need the BEST qualified people in our government . . . I could not care less what color or gender they are. I’m white and there are 10 black men and 10 women I’d vote to be POTUS.
She took credit for a group effort SHE PLAYED NO PART IN.
It was an eight-year fight in the Texas Capitol, and the only contribution she has been able to point to is circulating a petition, on her own campus, that went to her campus’s student government, which ignored the petition and voted to oppose campus carry anyway.
The people who spent hundreds or even thousands of hours on the cause and sacrificed grades, work opportunities, personal relationships, etc., to pass campus carry were content to quietly move on with their lives after the bill passed, but this woman who had nothing to do with the passing of the law claimed credit for the victory and tried to parlay that bogus claim into a media career. If you don’t see a problem with that, you need to check your moral compass.
Content to quietly move along, other than you?
Larry, do you see me running around trying to get my face and name on television and in the paper? Am I visiting college campuses and giving speeches about how I passed campus carry in Texas?
The fact that I’m anonymously defending SCC against ignorant blowhards like you doesn’t mean I’m trying to get attention for the work I did for SCC.
I’m just mad at her because she rejected my advances because I wanted her to peg me.
Keep trying.
Impersonating me is the closest Ms. Okafor’s supporters can come to offering a real rebuttal to anything SCC said in its release.
Several of the comments here presuppose that Progressives (certainly) and Democrats (probably) are all anti-gun, and itching to repeal 2A. Not so, my friends! I am a Democratic Socialist, and aware that the 2nd Amendment is here to stay, not least because there are too many states that would flat out vote against repeal. I also carry a sidearm, daily. I’m not alone, either. Many of my Left-of-Ghengis-Khan friends are gun owners and we often get together at the range, talk guns and tell each other lies.
Just. Like. You.
My point is that maybe some of you could throttle back on the political bias when, and wherever you talk about guns.
That was one of the problems SCC had with Ms. Okafor:
http://concealedcampus.org/2016/11/scc-statement-on-nra-opinion-column-by-former-scc-director/
are her efforts self-serving?…possibly…but it’s still a step in the right direction….
Hey Jack, maybe we could hijack the thread if you’d tell us exactly what free stuff it is you want, which causes you to be a Socialist? I wonder because I have been considering changing allegiances too, since it seems to me that every living person has an absolute right to a free Ferrari, and I’m just waiting for that promise. Should I have said “affordable”? I might settle for a McLaren …
Jack, I’m not your friend.Socialists are nothing but trash. You’re living, unAmerican garbage.
I’m ready to quit mixing politics and guns the second after Democrats erase gun control from their party platform. Owning guns, shooting them and talking about them doesn’t make you anything like me, if you vote for politicians who promised to take our rights away.
Btw. how exactly does ‘democratic’ socialism differ from any other kind of that abhorrent ideology? I lived in socialist country for 18 years, so I had first row seat to see how unbelievably democratic it was. Meetings and voting was ever present. Support of proposed resolutions was always unanimous and 100% of voters always attended elections to give their vote to The Party. Or else!
Sorry sir, you are what is wrong with today’s America.
Listen to me. I know more about this than all of you put together. You are all wrong. Okafor is evil and the SCC is wonderful. They’ve made great sacrifices for everyone and no one should even pretend they did more than they did or I will come and call you out on it and respond to every single post until I bore you to death.
If you’re not going to use your real name then just stop commenting. It’s obvious you are just trolling. We expect that of you here.
Please return to your Glory Hole. Your customers are waiting. Your 15 minute break is up.
Chris, if you can’t tell when someone is impersonating me to try to make me look stupid, you’re not intellectually competent to engage me in this type of discussion.
Boy, you are dumb. Chris was criticizing your impersonator, numbnuts.
If that’s the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, Chris’s statement “we expect that of you here” suggests that he thinks he’s speaking to the same person who has been engaging in the conversation all along. How does somebody expect anything of an anonymous impostor?
News flash to the Old Guard, the old fat white male gun owners. Or the old fat white women as well.
Most New Black Gun Owners and women are Democrats. The new gun owning homosexuals are democrats too. In fact I would guess that most new gun owners are democrats. And many voted for Donald Trump.
I’ve never heard of the SCC. But I have heard of white people in organizations who get uncomfortable when a black person in their group tends to “shine” more than they do. That in fact she or he is more articulate and willing to speak to the public, than some of the whites they are.
Also I think there are some white people in these organizations who really are not interested in expanding civil rights for gun owners. But they do like the power that being in a leadership position in these organizations gives them.
You’ve “heard” of white people in organizations being uncomfortable when a black person outshines them? Are you fing kidding? Post unsubstantiated racist BS much? Your other statement about the leaders of some of these organizations not wanting to expand civil rights is probably very accurate, except again for your racially charged “white” accusation. Even many people posting here do not support expansion of civil rights, especially outside of gun ownership.
I’d prefer seeing civil rights enforced a whole long time before we worry about “expanding” them. In fact, I am not at all convinced I (or you) know what this “expanded” even means. Dipshit “Socialists” abound, swearing that free cell phones, free housing, free college, free health care, even free Ferraris are basic human rights, I think basic rights guarantee the right of each person to earn these things, and nothing else. Wasn’t it Marx who said a democracy can only exist until the people learn to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury? Are we there?
Ok, maybe questionable use of words. My point is, and has always been the hypocrisy gun owners sometimes possess when dealing with other individual liberties. So many support the Bill of Rights destroying Patriot Act in the name of fighting terrorism, and the hypocrisy with the vaccine issue is endles, just to name a few examples.
Perhaps I should be more specific. The civil rights movement was heavily influenced by, $$$, from white Liberals, who DID NOT like blacks with guns. Period. Robert F. Williams said as much in his book “Negroes with Guns”. That has not changed in 2018. White Liberals are very racist people. I’m from California. I know.
And don’t talk to me about Ronald Reagan. He is a dead president. White Liberals have been in charge of California for a very, very, long time now. White Liberal gun owners saaaay, they like guns. But they have a big problem with, ANY black person, with a gun.
If SCC wasn’t interested in seeing a black woman shine, why did they spend fourteen months ghost writing op-eds and press releases and witness testimony for Ms. Okafor so that she could sound more informed and articulate than she really is? Why did they endure one disastrous interview and debate after another and keep giving her chance after chance to learn the material and do the job right?
Everyone at SCC wanted Ms. Okafor to succeed. In fact, they bent over backward to help her succeed, going as far as to provide her with free firearms training and connect her with industry insiders who would be able to help her career after she left SCC.
Ms. Okafor wasn’t the first woman of color to hold the Southwest regional director role at SCC; she was just the first person to hold that role and then publicly lie about it for personal gain. The problem isn’t that SCC didn’t want Ms. Okafor to shine; the problem is that Ms. Okafor didn’t care about anything except shining. She’s willing to say or do anything to stay in the spotlight.
We should sign up Okafor for a Texas Cage Match with the Hogg boy… two go in, one comes out.
I’d pay to see that.
Comments are closed.