By Patrick Carroll
The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.
The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.
The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.
The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.
Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.
Out of Touch
Consider, for example, someone who’s from a wealthy, safe neighborhood. They know very little about what it’s like to live in a high-crime area. They have probably never been robbed or threatened with violence from a total stranger. And if they do face threats, they have no qualms with calling the (armed) police who are usually responsive and happy to help.
Now compare that to the experience of someone from a rougher part of town. First, the cops there are probably not as responsive. What’s more, police can often become antagonistic, poking their nose where it doesn’t belong (see below) and sometimes arresting the very people they arrived to help.
Unsurprisingly, confidence in police is noticeably lower in these communities.
So what do you do if you live in a high-crime area where you can’t trust the police to help you? For many, the answer is to buy a gun. Indeed, 88 percent of gun owners cite crime protection as one of the main reasons they own a gun, and people who have been recent crime victims report higher rates of gun ownership than those who have not been recent victims.
This brings us to the point about privilege. To many people who grew up in these rough neighborhoods, saying “just call the cops” is like saying “let them eat cake.” It isn’t actually helpful advice. It just demonstrates how little we know about their circumstances and how unqualified we are to speak to their issues.
To be sure, the people in these communities are often divided over the issue of gun control themselves. Even so, if someone is buying a gun, there’s a good chance it’s because they don’t feel safe without it. So before we tell them they are better off disarmed, perhaps we should take stock of how privileged we are to not need guns ourselves.
A Decades-Old Problem
The connection between gun control and privilege may sound new to many, but it’s actually an issue that goes back decades. In 1978, for instance, the economist and libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard drew attention to this problem in his book For a New Liberty. To make his point, he quotes an article written by Don Kates for the Cato Institute’s Inquiry Magazine. Kates, for his part, pulls no punches.
“Gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given up on crime control,” Kates writes. “Such liberals weren’t upset about marijuana laws, either, in the fifties when the busts were confined to the ghettos. Secure in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by Pinkertons (whom no one proposes to disarm), the oblivious liberal derides gun ownership as ‘an anachronism from the Old West.’”
Kates goes on to highlight exactly what kind of people are being impacted by gun control policies. Citing a 1975 national survey, he notes that the leading subgroups who owned a gun only for self-defense were blacks, the lowest income groups, and senior citizens. “These are the people,” Kates eloquently warns, “it is proposed we jail because they insist on keeping the only protection available for their families in areas in which the police have given up.”
Four decades later, FBI data showed African Americans were still disproportionately impacted by anti-carry laws, accounting for 42 percent of all possession charges even though they accounted for just 13 percent of the overall population.
Of course, none of this will make gun control any less contentious. There is no silver bullet here. But perhaps this paradigm can at least give us a lesson in humility. Namely, don’t assume you know what’s best for someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.
Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
There is no such thing as “White Privilege” benefitting all Caucasian peopl.. People who are privileged above others tend to be wealthy and or politically connected. Everyone else either has or is seeking to have normalcy under the law, not privilege.
Remember everyone, according to the Left, “White Privilege” isn’t racist, but replace “White” with “Jewish”… ???
pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ….
People who are privileged over others tend to benefit from parents, grandparents and great grandparents who toiled to create the wealth that constitutes their privilege. This is earned privilege even though it wasn’t earned by the beneficiary but inherited. Unearned privilege is being politically connected for no other reason than the color of your skin, a privilege whites haven’t had in decades.
Every now and again I listen to the Albany police scanner to see what is going on before I go into the office. Every three weeks or so there is at least one home invasion and the response time from report to arrival is less than encouraging. Usually see some new faces at the range later on that week as well. Oddly the home invasions never make the paper just the occasional drug/gun busts.
Gun control is racist. It always has been. And it still is.
True. And crime is never really a problem until it reaches the white part of town.
for the black part of town, crime simply isn’t a problem, it’s just normal life. when they tell you the latest rapist/robber/murderer was a good boy, they’re being quite sincere.
it is.
and when another violent street thug is gunned down by the police, and the local demographic protests saying “he war a good boy! he dinndu nufffins!”, that should tell you why.
Arrested the person that called for help? Yep, done that lots of times. Often, they were the aggressor, and/or had open warrants. They often took umbridge. Complaining they had been they had been the 911 caller. I thanked them and asked that they do the same the next time they committed a crime/had an open warrant. I loved it when they made it easy.
And yes, if you have a DGU it is best to call 911 first. Don’t think it makes you the automatic good guy. Be careful what you say. Especially at the scene. To everyone. L.E.O. or not. Repeat this mantra, “Officer, I want to cooperate with your investigation. However, I decline to answer any questions or make any statements until I’ve spoken with an attorney.” Then shut up. You’ll want to explain. After all. You’re in the right. Don’t explain a damn thing. Let your attorney do it. That’s why he’s making the big bucks.
word. live it.
reported a fire once. didn’t understand why the investigator grilled me for an hour afterwards trying to pin it on me as if I were the perp. found out years later that that’s just standard police procedure – the guy that reports it is the arsonist. haven’t reported a thing since.
Arsonists feed off of the attention. It’s a genuine mental illness.
That makes them a lot like mentally-ill demented internet trolls, it seems to me.
Contributing nothing to the community, and just shitting up the place for those that just want to talk about guns, in a gun blog… 😉
well YOUR post doesn’t contribute anything ….
“Arrested the person that called for help? Yep, done that lots of times. Often, they were the aggressor, and/or had open warrants. ”
This is something the Karens don’t understand. Sometimes you don’t call the cops because you got warrants out on you, the cops know you or your family by name (not for good reasons), there is all kinds of illegal stuff at the place you would be bringing the cops to, etc.
That and snitches get stiches. Many a cop has shown up to a DV call and had the victim (often a wife) turn and get physical w/ the responding officer. Yeah, just call the cops and after they leave a bunch of guys just out of prison will pay you a visit (possibly your own cousins). The always wealthy would probably have a better shot at understanding the ecology of a coral reef then knowing how the rez, hood, or trailer park works.
How long does it take you to go from the farthest corner at one end of your house to the farthest corner at the other end? Even in the most affluent, well policed neighborhoods, a call to 911 about an intruder isn’t going to get a police officer on scene in that time. The middle class liberals who live in “safe” neighborhoods aren’t just oblivious to the dangers faced by residents of high crime neighborhoods. They are oblivious to their own vulnerability.
Here’s my hubris:
All these low-income, low-iq, gutter-rutting, urban dwellers & joggers vote democrat. They elect dacian’s hell, single-mother generation after single-mother generation.
This is apparently what they want. Let them have all of it.
“This is apparently what they want”
it is. seriously. no joke. no exaggeration. when they say that police and the courts and the law and the constitution and western civilization are all inherently racist, they mean it.
They seek the freedom of the beasts, not realizing that even beasts have the law of the jungle. And that’s one law you can’t mostly peacefully protest away.
They have been so thoroughly brainwashed by democrat lies while being handed ‘free’ social benefits most are incapable of another way of thought. And those that do think differently are told by the democrats they aren’t black and even told by other blacks that they aren’t black enough.
Also delusional in aspect that if things stay the course they’re on, there won’t be ANY areas that are immune to the anarchy. No matter how white, how affluent, how educated, etc. Just watch real news folks, more “priveleged” people becoming victims every day!!
Those privileged ones you mention do make some of the most fun times in education to reality. What do you mean I can’t buy a pistol today, what do you mean I need a permit to even touch a pistol without a permit, why are all the assault weapons so weird looking, why is everything so expensive etc etc. If even 1/3 of them walk away with the idea things are off I would be happy. Springtime to Summer could be interesting depending on pending court decisions.
“if things stay the course they’re on, there won’t be ANY areas that are immune to the anarchy”
true, but not all at once – some areas will remain safe, giving the appearance of “success”, for quite some time.
I know someone who called the police when he was assaulted. The first cop on the scene was the son of the guy who assaulted him. Guess who got arrested?
ROFLMAO – wasn’t a cop, but I had similar experience. Got in a fight with an arsehole before I went to boot camp. Third night at boot camp, Chief Petty officer comes through the barracks, rousts out the entire company, puts us on the grinder doing pushups. SOB wanders among us, asking people their names. He gets to me, I tell him my name, and he tells me his name. Bastid was the uncle of the arsehole I got in a fight with at home. Chief made life miserable for me for several days, until he figured he had punished me enough.
In unincorporated areas of my county response time can be 10-20 minutes or more…
20 minutes would be nice, Scooter. One night, I got a phone call, I was needed immediately cause a son was injured. I arrive in about 4 minutes, I find that my son and his friend are both injured due to a gasoline explosion. It would take me ~30 minutes to transport both boys to the nearest medical center, but I’m told “Don’t move them, I’ve already called the ambulance!” We wait for 50 minutes for the ambulance to arrive, about 15 minutes later the first cop arrives, then the decision is made to wait for life flight. So, we wait and wait and wait – about 35 minutes after the cops arrived, the helicopter finally goes “whop whop whop” and lands on the highway. 105 minutes have passed since the explosion, when I could have delivered the boys to the ER in 30 minutes. Morphine was delayed well over an hour, because “I already called the ambulance!”
Go figure. You are your own best first responder, in all circumstances.
Yup, just call the cops. Officer Scot Peterson be there to help you as soon as the shooting stops.
That video is disgusting. Basically, those cops insist that they have the right to barge into your home, based on nothing. “Oh, we got a call . . . ” justifies anything. Who called? When did they call? Why did they call? No one in my home called you, go away unless you have a warrant! The woman has a perfect case for assault and battery, as well as burglary, committed by the police. It might even be breaking and entering, since they first assaulted her and restrained her, before walking in the door, which she had already denied permission for. Had they taken anything, even a glass of water, that would be armed robbery.
I (as a white guy) was born into a poor family situation,
I myself with the help of relatives & my own moral fortitude pulled myself up by my own boot straps & now I got a decent life, My friends of all colors have done the same thing.
So NO. I can’t sympathize with people always complaining about inequalities.
Get off your ass & make yourself better or shut up & stay on the public dole…..PERIOD.
Amen. My parents did the exact same thing, they were both raised dirt poor, my mother below the poverty line. Now they are absolutely killing it, and earned every single bit of it, with ZERO help from my grandparents, the government, The Church, no one helped them besides them. Fuck all the whiners, and double fuck the ones who make bullshit excuses like skin color in this country, in this day and age.
“These results suggest that one-third of all homicides are classified as domestic, and most of these cases involve female victims,” the researchers write. “Furthermore, domestic homicides committed by family members and intimate partners increase as the levels of firearm ownership increase.”
Specifically, for each 10 percent increase in household gun ownership rates, the researchers found a 13 percent increase in domestic homicides involving firearms.
https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun-at-home-can-mean-a-higher-risk-of-being-killed-there
Criminals usually avoid homes when people are in them that is another fact from many studies done. They know that there will be noise alerting the neighbors, violence, of course witnesses that will identify them.
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.
Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.
Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.
Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.
4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.
5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.
Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.
6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.
Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.
7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.
8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”
May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. http://www.medscape.com
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens
Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.
May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.
May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.
11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.
Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011.
Is fale crap all you know how to copy and paste dacian?
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, time frame, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
lil ‘d, stop, take a deep breath, now go out to your car and find the box of TidePods in the trunk. Open the box, take out five pods, unwrap and injest them slowly – – – take ONLY five, remember how good that worked ? Then, slowly return to your keypad, remember that your are back on Earth, and formulate a rational response…. we will wait.
dacian, you are so full of dung, you are like a Christmas turkey. I don’t know where you got that crapola from, but it is horse pucky!
Typical anti-gun rhetoric based on lies.
Gotta keep repeating the lies
“Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense”
This is a bald faced lie. Obama’s own 2013 gun study by the CDC estimated defensive gun use to be between 800,000-3,000,000 times per year, almost identical to the research done in the 1990s.
“Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal”
The unalienable right to self-defense against someone escalating an argument from words to violence is both sociallly desireable and legal.
“Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense”
Brandishing a firearm to intimidate a beligerent is a legitimate form of self-defense.
“Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime”
Intimidating would be criminals thwarts crime.
“Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense”
So?
“Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime”
Live by the sword, die by the sword. When you participate in turning your community into a degenerate crime zone, don’t be surprised when you become a victim of degenerate crime.
“Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens”
Weird how criminals avoid decent law-abiding citizens and choose to prey on the degenerates they surround themselves with. It’s almost like decent law-abiding citizens are hard targes, while degenerates are not.
“Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions”
It’s good that it’s rare. Using guns self-defensively is an effective and legitimate form of self-defense, no matter what your irrational beliefs are.
yep, that’s why there’s so many videos of robbers breaking into houses and getting shot at by the homewoner/s. STFU
Excellent! Was there a point?
Lol don’t care still getting guns and supporting everyone else being able to do the same
In previous studies of dv homicides it has been revealed the researchers omitted that the majority of firearms used were brought to scene by the perps.
We’re well aware that the gun control fanatics make up their own ‘studies’. I’m not even looking at that one, thank you. Hoplophobes make up new statistics every couple of months, basing their new ‘research’ on decades old studies that have since been disproven. When a lefty/marxist/dem comes up with a new number, you’ve got to remember how the opioid crisis started out: One damned fool testified in front of congress that less than 1% of opioid prescriptions resulted in addiction. Also bear in mind that less than 1% of COVID cases are fatal. Yeah – numbers are magic, but you have to keep the numbers keepers honest because they’ll lie to you at the drop of a hat.
I’d be interested in hearing how the leftists reacted to this article.
Read the link above
Who cares what some low IQ, blue-haired incel thinks?
He’s the Special Social Justice Commissar with Extraordinary Powers. He has a FINAL SOLUTION to gun owners and their crimes against the oppressed. Rendition, Enhanced Interrogation, and survivors herded into the showers for delousing.
Nobody gives a shit. Except you. And you’re nobody.
to Flag Waver
Brilliant reply. Did you construct that reply all by yourself or did you require assistance? LMAO. You are the quintessential “dumb cop”
Then that’s a serious problem, because our side will not make converts by preaching to the choir. Especially not by preaching to the choir while using leftist bilge. (“White privilege”? Seriously? Plenty of people of all colors, including Whites, are having their rights infringed by anti-2A policies.)
At the barest minimum, there should be a lot of outreach to swing-voters, even if doctrinaire leftists cannot be converted.
Dacian, did you not follow instructions ?… five !
dacian, You really are a paltry, insolent fellow, aren’t you?
All your points are silly.
Golly where I live(Cook county)most of the “privilege” seems to belong to brown folk’s. With $ & po-litical power. He!! I had a brown ex-wife who seriously thought us white boyz were born with a proverbial silver spoon. Ex but I repeat myself…
This is what I was trying to get at. Race is not the same as class, and class is not the same as willfully propping up corrupt government.
And neither 2A nor the enforcement of law should be about class/race/etc.
NO ONE cared to point out that you were “choseing poorly” BEFORE you married her? I suppose you were “in love” had found your one and only “soulmate” blah blah blan. Would you chose a house, car, gun with that empty headed “logic”.
FOR ME IT IS EASIER TOTE MY S&W 38 AIRWEIGHT , LTC
THAN TO TOTE A POLICE OFFICER AROUND
NO YOU CANNOT FIND A POLICE OFFICER ON EVERY CORNER
If the 2A actually was applied as intended, without decades of lawyers arguing over it, and politicians using it for political reasons, it wouldn’t even be an issue. “F” ’em all, the young, the short, and the tall.
The first time I held a gun in my hand was 1947 and I was 3 years old. I’ve been carrying off and on ever since, and have had more than one occasion to use one.
did you appendix carry at age 3?
Funny haha. No.
.40 cal Booger,
No, gunnygene did not appendix carry at age 3 because toddlers wore cloth diapers back then secured with safety pins which could not support the weight of a firearm. In more recent times with disposable diapers secured with outstanding tape–he would definitely appendix carry!
“If the 2A actually was applied as intended” …
… we’d all be in an active well-regulated militia.
when/if necessary…yes…
and well regulated? that means in proper working order…so fully armed (with up to date weapons…ie assault weapons)…plenty of ammo…other supplies as necessary
“when/if necessary…yes…”
no. BEFORE if/when necessary.
“well regulated? that means in proper working order”
that means the UNIT is in proper working order – well-led, well-organized, well-drilled, well-disciplined.
precisely what the modern right won’t accept.
{About the meaning of a “well-regulated militia.)
“that means the UNIT is in proper working order – well-led, well-organized, well-drilled, well-disciplined.”
Exactly what ‘militia’ in the Constitution are you referring to?
The Constitution refers to two (2) militia, the regulated militia (in modern terms, think the ‘National Guard’) and the second militia, the one that Leftist Scum like *you* refuse to accept :
Ҥ246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
Now, what would be the most practical way to keep the unorganized militia trained? A ‘gang that can’t shoot straight’ is useless for national defense.
Simple – Clearly state that there will be zero interference with ‘We, the People’ (sound familiar? Bueller? Beuller?) and that’s being able to buy (to keep), and bear (carry with them as they move about their business daily).
Just one declarative sentence can do it :
“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.”
Who does it apply to? The people, the very same people of “We, the People”. It does not say “Only the military has the right to weapons of war.”
It applies to ‘The People.’, That’s everybody, you stupid jackass… 🙁
rant7 you are very confused. Go back to start you’re sounding like a brain dead prog with your National Guard “interpretation”
“rant7 you are very confused”
you mean I understand what you’re doing.
We are. But it’s the right of the people, not the right of the militia.
“We are”
no, you’re not. you’re just a bunch of loners. loners lose.
“But it’s the right of the people, not the right of the militia”
the 2nd makes no distinction. in making the distinction, you negate the 2nd.
““But it’s the right of the people, not the right of the militia”
the 2nd makes no distinction. in making the distinction, you negate the 2nd.”
Wrong, that’s a lie of omission, and that kind of lie is evil (like you and every one of your ilk).
I refer you to Federal law 10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA :
“(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
If you seriously believe that the same “The People” of the 4th amendment :
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
…doesn’t apply to every citizen, then you can’t be helped…
@rant7
‘”the 2nd makes no distinction. in making the distinction, you negate the 2nd.”
False.
“… … we’d all be in an active well-regulated militia.”
False
“False”
“Wrong, that’s a lie of omission, and that kind of lie is evil (like you and every one of your ilk)”
(shrug) it’s right there for everyone to read. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” it pertains to the militia and the state, any individual consideration being exercised within that context.
and that’s “dread ilk” to you.
rant7 says “… we’d all be in an active well-regulated militia.”
Actually, no. We would all have become members of a militia at age 17. We would have attended drill periodically, until we reached age 40 or 45 or something like that. Said drills may or may not have amounted to what Army Reserve does in today’s America – a weekend a month, and two weeks a year, I think. Those of us who chose to enlist in active military would probably have discharged our lifetime obligations in a year or six.
Not to mention, most of us here are older than dirt, and no longer obligated to serve at all. It’s the next generation’s turn to serve.
WRONG If you’re not dead, your obligation to support and defend the Constitution (from the damn progtards) still exists.
Paul, you are dead wrong. The Founding Fathers specifically said that we (the entire population) make up the militia. your contention that we would have to drill does not take into account what the Founding Fathers said. Please do us a favor, before you think, do some research.
“We would all have become members of a militia at age 17. We would have attended drill periodically, until we reached age 40 or 45 or something like that.”
actually in point of fact the 2nd, as written, is obsolete. the writers were attempting to emulate the practices of the greek city states, but the practice was obsolete even as they were writing it.
the problem is the modern “right”. they’re not nationalists or patriots or defenders of the constitution, they’re just loners who interpret everything in terms of themselves alone. they have no intention of participating in any militia, any more than they have any intention of being citizens of any state or nation – they’re just isolates on the fringes of a society, demanding the rights thereof but unwilling to participate in it in any way. anything else is shouted down as “police state!” or “tyranny!” or other such – not because they oppose police or tyranny (they’re quite willing to be police and tyrannical themselves in their own interests) but because they dislike or even hate Other People. they seek to put as much distance between themselves and Other People as they can, collect 100,000 cartridges of ammo and talk about “one shot one kiill” – but not, never ever, in any kind of well-regulated militia, because that would involve those Other People.
“The Founding Fathers specifically said that we (the entire population) make up the militia”
because you’re supposed to be IN one. not sitting on the couch saying “I’m the militia and I’m OK”.
We *are* all in an active, well regulated militia. If you are not, it is your specified responsibility, if an American citizen, to obtain a suitable firearm and learn to use it, then maintain it and a suitable store of ammunition so as to be ready if called upon. If you are not in compliance then you are a poor example of a citizen and should be shunned by your betters.
LarryinTX,
runt7 tired to join groups in the past. But once they figured out there was something wrong with him, they gave him the boot. Would you want a racist, incel, pro-Nazi sympathizer in your midst? Ya know, a guy who looks longingly at little boys and girls.
Since then, he has been butt hurt, lashing out at any one Pro-2ndA. So he has this everyone is a loner and a loser.
“runt7 tired to join groups”
hi jarhead. still planning on being sheriff of amishville?
Hi runt7/ant7/gman.
You still having feverish dreams of a WROL where you can shoot non-whites and Jews at will? Be able to force yourself on women and small children?
To TTAG community, runt7 is a well known racist, antisemite, and incel. He goes around to sites like this, posting his garbage.
EpsteinDidNOTKillHimself What is obvious is that you are the real racist and antisemite. Get help, you need it desperately.
The fact is that most of the people here believe in this thing called self defense. Let me put it this way. We don’t lay down and roll over for anyone!
We are, by federal law. Not too surprising the people most ignorant on guns and gun use are ignorant of gun laws.
All of their positions are essentially luxury beliefs the type some caricature oligarchy like that of the Hunger Games would have. From diet to economy to biology nothing these people claim to believe is workable here in reality where the rest of us useless feeders live.
Where the hell do these Police get that it’s their duty “to secure a house” that IS NOT their own? Bad cops right there.
I ve noticed cops like to go into your house whether invited or not.
As a matter of fact I had give away kittens, a police officer showed up to get one for his girlfriend, I said wait I’ll get them. No he barges in my house, the cats scattered, then he was going to tear my cabinets apart trying to get the last one to pick from. It’s not theirs so they dont mind busting up your shit.
In The above video I’m surprised the girl was not arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer.
Possum, in my neighborhood it is difficult to convince the police to enter even when I am standing there inviting them! Of course, it IS Texas, they probably assume every homeowner is armed (correctly in my case), and would prefer to not be shot a few times over a mistake. But we’ve been here for 25 years now and have called 911 several times for non-criminal emergencies, without ever having a responding officer overstep. Including a time when my wife fell off the stairs and was seriously injured, responding police were clearly interested in my actions/responsibility during that accident, as they should be and as I understood and appreciated, but at no time tried to violate my rights. The world should be like that, and I understand that it is not.
Country Boy,
Note: I am as critical about police conduct as almost anyone and I am most certainly NOT a “boot licker”.
The situation in the embedded video is kind of a lose-lose situation for both the resident of the dwelling and the police.
You are totally right that police have no legitimate authority to barge into someone’s dwelling for no reason.
So, consider when someone uses a cellphone, calls police, claims to be an assault or kidnapping victim, and asks for help at address 1234 Main Street. If that was a truthful call, police have (or should have) legitimate authority to search that dwelling for the victim as well as the perpetrator. If that was not a truthful call, then police have no legitimate authority to go in that dwelling.
Now here is the rub: how do police know when such a call is truthful which then (and only then) justifies entering the dwelling to search it (whether or not the resident of the dwelling agrees to the search)? I honestly cannot think of any simple way for police to know. And I honestly cannot think of any simple solution.
If we “err on the side of caution” and empower police to search the dwelling, that opens Pandora’s box for abuse (e.g. revenge “SWAT-ing” or police using that avenue to violate privacy rights). If we “err on the side of privacy rights”, that opens Pandora’s box for violent criminal exploitation of victims inside criminals’ homes.
Do you have a solution which protects privacy rights and crime victims? I am all ears.
Cops need a warrant to enter unless activity chasing a suspect, they see an offense through a window, door etc. or you are stupid enough to let them in. Go find a judge and get a warrant. Otherwise everyone involved is going to have a bad day.
I have a solution.
If the cops really think there is something that they need to check out, they put the property under surveillance while the get a WARRANT.
If the judge laughs at the request for a warrant, then the cops don’t enter.
There’s a reason for warrants, and the video demonstrates that reason.
Cops should have location services available which tell them the call came from within the house, and who owns the phone which made it, or they should have a WARRANT! If the call came from a blocked number and no probable cause for a warrant exists, they should not even respond to the call, nothing good can possibly result.
“Secure” it? As recent history records, when the cops (certainly the Fed JBTs) are done tearing you home apart, cracking any gun lockers they will leave with the front door standing wide open.
“Namely, don’t assume you know what’s best for someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.”
Then, when you tell someone what is best for them, you are a mile away.
And you have their shoes.
Progressive wisdom to live by. 😀
First thing is I believe many of those crying about “White Privilege” mistake it for Wealth Privilege. Believe me, the cops would respond to Herschel Walkers mansion faster than they would to the white trailer park down the road a couple miles.
The “Just call the Police, or call 911” attitude works for those living in the wealthier suburbian or high rent districts in the city. Those of us out here in rural, or small town America, or those who live in the poorer parts of the cities can’t count on quick response from emergency services and must be our own first responders.
For me it’s because I have chosen to live out here next door to the middle of nowhere. For others it’s because the Police can’t or won’t for whatever reasons, respond in a timely manner. Of course, when they get to the scene in many cities, it is a chaotic mess and they have no idea who is the victim and who is the perp. By the time they can sort things out, they may find the victim is also wanted on a warrant, or has possibly commited or may have been part of the situation or crime to start with. As was common back when I was growing up, you don’t pick a fight and then holler for help when you lose the fight.
As for the gun control angle, it has never been the fault of the hardware used to commit the crime, but the fault of the person using the gun. No more than it would be the fault of Ford Motor Company if some punk uses 1 of their products to do a drive by shooting or deliver illegal drugs, or run someone down. It’s the man, not the machine.
If, in fact, I have some kind of ‘privilege’ just because I’m white, I’ve never noticed it. But, instead of taking away my privilege, I propose that we offer that privilege to people who are not white.
Those chanting ‘white privilege’ actually want to tear me down from some imagined pedestal. I’d rather offer them a lift up onto the pedestal.
Numerous articles on TTAG illustrate that blacks, latinos, Asians, women, gays, and every other ‘downtrodden and oppressed’ ‘minority’ are buying guns in record numbers. That pleases me, to no end. Give the other guy a lift up, no reason for me to become one of the oppressed.
“Wealth Privilege”
Wealth isn’t a privilege. It’s the result of hard and valuable work.
Moms Demanding Action must not have a man with a big enough gun. Har har
Have you looked a some of those “moms”? Had to be artificial insemination, even little d probably wouldn’t hit some of them.
Awaiting moderation
Have you seen thoes moms? Who would hit that?
Artificial insemination maybe?
sounds like TTAG with the ‘jogger’ (in timbaland boots, schizophrenic conviced felon)
LOL
And in other news….A California appeals court has upheld the firings of two Los Angeles Police Department officers who failed to respond to a robbery in progress and instead went searching for a Snorlax in the Pokémon Go augmented reality game.
(https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B307412.PDF)
So much for calling the police in LA.
I always thought Moms Demand Action meant they were looking desperately to get picked up at the local dive bar but nobody paid them any mind.
I think there is actually a “silver bullet.” The Second Amendment, as written, lays out a pretty clear standard for who has the right to own arms – The People. All of them.
“who has the right to own arms – The People. All of them”
in a well-regulated militia.
Perfect ☝️…☝️…☝️
Good article, however the Marie Antoinette quote is incorrect. https://www.thoughtco.com/let-them-eat-cake-quote-4002293
Good article, but to expect humility from your average four-eyed upper middle class corporate wage slave is a bit too much. They are loyal to their corporate overlords.
Comments are closed.