TTAG has taken Michael Moore to task countless times for his promotion of civilian disarmament. Most recently, we reported on the agitprop filmmaker’s unconscionable campaign to get the mass media to wave the bloody shirt for the Sandy Hook spree killing. Literally. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. On MSNBC’s Ed show, MM stumbled onto something approaching the truth when he said the following . . .
Did you realize that over 90% of the guns in this country are owned by white people in the suburbs and in rural areas? Ninety-percent of our guns are not owned by African-Americans, hispanics, minority groups, they’re owned by white people. Now are these white people so afraid of out in the suburbs? Are they thinking little red head, freckle-faced Jimmy down the street is going to, you know, kill them? Mug them? I don’t think so. Are they afraid the guy next door is gonna break in and steal their t.v.? No, because they know the guy next door makes $50-60,000 a year. So poverty and racism the answer is pretty much the same answer for a lot of our other problems.
Obviously, Moore’s main argument is ridiculous. Americans’ gun rights don’t depend on the level of actual or perceived risk. As the Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirmed, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right; it doesn’t require social justification.
That said, Moore’s rant contains a kernel of truth: African-Americans, hispanics and minority groups living in high crime urban areas have more need for armed self-defense that white gun owners living in rural or suburban areas.
Again, gun rights aren’t predicated on need. But Moore’s point is well taken. To help stem violent crime where it [mostly] lives, white gun owners should do what they can to help law abiding citizens in urban minority communities tool-up. Both at home and on the streets.
Kenn Blanchard (above, center) is developing a new organization to help train-up American minorities: SAFE (Share America’s Firearms Equally). We’ll keep you posted on his progress.
It’s an effort that will no doubt receive Mr. Moore’s condemnation. Which tells you all you need to know about who’s racist and who isn’t.
When you factor in that the population in this country living in areas where you can own guns, that 90% is probably low in proportion to racial demographics.
And even if that’s not totally accurate, crime is lower because we have more guns in the suburbs. Makes sense to me.
Here’s Kenn Blanchard’s YouTube channel.
And here’s his most popular video.
As a biracial gun owner who’s half black and an NRA member, I find it offensive whenever anyone , no matter their status, claims guns are the exclusive domain of the “white man”.
Civil rights know no skin color.
Amen.
YEAH!
As a minority I feel the same way. BTW I consider myself American, its the government that puts the label of minority on me. Anyway, I have never thought about race when discussing firearms. This only goes to show that progressives are the racist. They constantly think about race and put labels on any and everything.
Well said, sir.
Same here! American, Veteran, and acording to them(you know them) a minority. Proud gun owner.
amen
Makes me wonder how many of you laughed at the post “Defensive Gun Use of the Day: What’s Behind Door Number 1 Edition” stated “If obama had a son……” and is now agreeing with ST.
I’m a black guy and laughed at that one.
Amazing the numbers you can come up with when you need to make something up right off the top of your old pointy head. I’d say MM is lying out both sides of his mouth, but I think his mouth is multisided.
I’d say he wouldn’t know the truth if it ran him over……
Truth better have a lift kit.
hahaha, thanks for the laugh!
BURN!
his mouth has to be multisided. A single one couldn’t keep up with MM’s daily caloric intake.
Uh….again Michael Moore you are WRONG (and still a tubbo fat shit idiot)… I’m what you would call a “minority”, I’m not one of those “attention whore minorities” that go around and say “Oh pity me, I’m a minority, I feel entitled to shit”
I’m also a firearm owner. A lot of the firearm owners I see are “minorities” as well.
I know when I go to a gun show, a lot of the people there arre OFWGs, but there are “minorities” there as well as youths there my age round the 20’s.
So F^ck off Michael Moore, I may be a “Minority” by your “standards”, but you dont speak for me a$$hole.
Why is the law-abiding black community (in Chicago) rejecting arms for self defense? I perceive that a significant segment of them have profound faith-based opinions. That’s cool. But when violent crime threatens your family, it’s time to abide by “The Lord helps those who help themselves.”
Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition. What one does not solve, the other will.
There’s also “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.”
How the f^ck does Fatboy know the racial makeup of gun owners? Did he take a poll?
Hey, he doesn’t need to know. He’s real good at the making-up-sh!t thing. It’s made him a rich 1%er, ya know.
He’s sitting on a pole. Oh sorry said poll my bad /sarcasm. 😮
Typical racist remark by two-cheeseburgers Moore. I don’t care WHAT the race is of the person – or Government – who is trying to do harm to me or my family; I WILL protect myself.
incendiary comment of the day:
maybe we should do a BMI check before allowing people to have forks and spoons
But you can still eat cheeseburgers and pizza with your fingers. Obviously we need to handcuff fat people. It’s for their own good.
Ssshhhh! They’ll hear you. Nanny Bloomberg already has me in his sights…
If Moore is so brave, what does he care who has guns? Seems to me he obsesses more on guns than I obsess on crime. If he’s mathematically inclined he might realize that 90% of the guns among 70% of the population isn’t such a surprising distribution, and is probably similar for SUV ownership as well. Moore’s eager to wave photos of a few white Newtown kids? I haven’t seen him wave photos of Camden or Chicago kids. Doesn’t he care about them? What I notice about Moore is that he only markets to a white audience. He’s a creep. Judging from the way he dresses Moore’s only fear, rational at that, is fear of mirrors.
What I notice about Moore is that he only markets to a white audience.
That’s because black people are too smart to pay for that sh!t.
I can’t vouch for the accuracy of his figures, but he’s correct on the principle of white people making $60,000 not breaking in to steal your TV. People who work hard and have something to lose don’t screw around like that.
But…if it’s the suburban white guys making $60,000 that we now know (thanks to Michael Moore) are NOT even *potential* criminals, and they own 90% of the guns, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO BAN GUNS?
I bust out laughing every time I see your name! Where is MikeyBdigits anyway? I haven’t seen him or GLG in a while.
http://kennblanchard.com/?ammoland
Rock on, Mr. Kenn.
ropingdown:
if he were a logician he would not have become a film director.
Doubtless you’re right, dwb, for his “proofs” are all faulty. But he’s a miner. He mines sniveling idiots for their cash, and now he’s rich. And they don’t get it. You can become rich even if you’re ugly, hypocritical, and think Logic is a new Chanel perfume. Is this a great country or what!
If he’s worried about guns being disproportionately owned by affluent whites, I should hope Mr. Moore would be pleased to hear that I am not white, that I live in a high-crime, low-income, inner-city neighborhood, and that I am a gun-owner.
The ostentatious self-hating bigotry of progressive whites will never cease to amaze and disgust me.
Why even bother listening to anything that nutcase has to say? Michael Moore is no different than a homeless bum who holds up signs near a university calling students fornicators and sinners that are all damned to fire and brimstone. Personally, I’m glad Michael “Fatbody” Moore, Mike “Big Gulp” Bloomberg, Joe “Double Barrel” Biden, and Piers “Expatriate” Morgan are the spokesmen for gun control. If the loony left would find a calm rational sounding person to be the spokesman for gun control, we’d have a much harder time fighting new gun control legislation. Instead, we’re given a constant stream of sound bites to play over-and-over-and-over to make the loony left sound, well, loony.
To help stem violent crime where it [mostly] lives, white gun owners should do what they can to help law abiding citizens in urban minority communities tool-up. Both at home and on the streets.
And all those evil racists agree with you too. The blacks kill more of each other in a single year than the Klan ever did in its 150+ year history. I say we allow LINK cards to be used at gun stores.
Even if MM’s numbers were correct, which they aren’t, following his logic should lead him to conclude that disarming the 90%, white, suburban population would do nothing to reduce crime or violence – yet miraculously this conclusion manages to elude him. That’s an amazing feat of cognitive dissonance.
I’m working poor, as are many small business owners. Very small. I’m also whitish (an eighth Lakota) and rural.
That said, he didn’t say anything pertaining to 2A, at least not to criticize.
Most people don’t buy guns with an idea to promoting or celebrating 2A. They buy ’em as toys, for hunting or self defense.
Yes, that’s their human right but in most cases (I suspect) the right isn’t the reason they plunk down money for steel. The reason is the use to which they intend to put it.
Also, those better-off suburbs are great places in which for bad guys to go shopping, so Armed is generally Better than he thinks.
My buddy, Rick Ector, runs a Detroit CCW training group called LAID (Legally Armed In Detroit). He’s the first (and only) black NRA certified firearms instructor I’ve ever met and a real earth-shaker. He’s always in the media, doing talk shows and radio and has one heck of a blog. I’d bet the number of armed black urban citizens would go up if his students were included in the survey!
So here we have an admission that guns aren’t the problem, but hey, we should ban them anyway, since we have to look busy?
Never doubt the power of idiots in large numbers.
Criminals choose the time and place to commit violence upon law-abiding citizens, not the other way around, Mr. Moore.
Believe it or not, all law-abiding citizens that carry are not vigilantes looking for trouble. We go about our lives in peace. But trouble finds us and threatens our life or the lives of our loved ones, well then, we send it straight to hell.
I hope this shocking revelation adequately deflates your ridiculous white-guy-in-the-suburbs argument as a reason not to carry.
As my liberal friend once accidentally admitted, guns aren’t the problem but it’s easier to ban them than fix real problems.
My area is lousy with prescription drug abuse. They are almost exclusively used and dealt by whites. I’m infinitely more worried about a doped up cracker than any gang banger.
There is, definitely, a long-standing policy in this country to disarm the poor, especially the urban poor, and there is most certainly a history of racists attempting to disarm the non-white, though I’m not sure there are recent, overt examples of that.
But there seems to be an assumption in Moore’s head that gun folks are in favor of such discrimination. Are we? I don’t think so. I’m personally in favor of everyone who wants a weapon having one, with the exception of those with a violent criminal history or the seriously mentally disturbed.
THE CRIMINALS ALREADY HAVE GUNS. Making guns unavailable to the poor only renders them defenseless to bullies.
For blacks who live in inner cities, there is really no reason to have a positive impression of guns. In areas where guns are heavily restricted, they will typically associate guns with 2 types of people: police and criminals. Law abiding inner city blacks do not expect positive interactions with either of them. When the state places a huge stigma on something by making it illegal, the attitude that the banned thing is innately bad will generally soon follow.
Homicides may be associated with poor people and ethnic minorities, but I think neither genetics nor the degree of wealth causes violence.
Poorer Americans are exposed to a number of things which I believe induce violence.
Schools in those neighborhoods have less money, which means more people being herded into a smaller area with less attention and more inter-student violence (verbal and physical),
Poorer Americans receive much more “welfare” funds, subtly discouraging work ethic and promoting the sense of helplessness the people already have. It also gives people (who sometimes aren’t as committed to life goals) time to do nothing, therefore losing a sense of purpose, getting into trouble, all while still being and feeling “poor”.
At the risk of sounding too cruel and judgmental, most poorer Americans, with work ethic, determination, and purpose can truly pull themselves out of their situation and move out of those more violent areas. Because those areas have cheaper housing, they attract people who lack some of these qualities, or need to develop them, and the neighborhood becomes a magnet/breeding ground for those with social problems.
I highly doubt that disarming the hardest working of the poor is a good way to reduce violence.
A kernel of truth from Moore is reminiscent of that mythical room full of monkeys with typewriters. At least the monkeys are kinda cute and more impartial when throwing their poo.
Comments are closed.