Gun Control = Elitism ? racism? classism?

In some areas, ordinary people of the wrong color, people who live in the wrong neighborhood and have the wrong kind of job — well, those folks are out of luck, and cannot legally own effective tools they might use to protect themselves and their families. They are priced out of the concealed carry market by abuses of “may issue” laws, or by the cost and difficulty of meeting the law’s training requirements, or by high bureaucratic fees. A fee that seems reasonable to a middle-class individual often falls far outside the reach of someone below the poverty line. A training requirement that can be easily met by someone with a high-status, 9 to 5 weekday job might be utterly impossible for a single parent working erratic hours at a low-status job. To put it bluntly, I oppose “reasonable” restrictions in this area because every law that increases the regulatory burden on good people, also creates unavoidable racist and classist effects in actual use.

Kathy Jackson, on “reasonable” restrictions

It’s curious because many of those who seek “reasonable restrictions” and other sorts of “gun control” tend to also be those that are against racism, classism, and other sorts of social divide.

Then they promote it, through measures like this.

If there’s any one thing I value it’s consistency (which overlaps with integrity). I really don’t care what your political leaning is, your social leaning, just as long as you’re consistent about it. I don’t like bigotry, but I can respect a consistent and honest bigot more than someone who is selective, holds double-standards, and denies or is blind to their own bigotry. Yes, we all want answers, we all want solutions, but you have to think things through else those “unintended consequences” will bite you in your ass.

7 thoughts on “Gun Control = Elitism ? racism? classism?

  1. Sort of reminds me of the “Saturday Night Special” phraseology. In other words using a racist term in order to promote gun control. That, and effectively banning the poor from being able to properly and effectively defend themselves and theirs. Sure, I own a top of the line Kimber but for the less fortunate why not an inexpensive Charter Arms? The ladies quick comment is precisely what I wrote my research paper about in college for the English course. It was titled “The racist and elitist roots of gun control.”

    • Well, it’s par for the course… because there are those happy to stand behind Secret Service men and women… and dole out “self defense” advice.

  2. “The unfortunate reality is that there is no way to guarantee complete safety in a free society.”

    This is a sentence from Kathy’s article. It’s also the reason why her message won’t connect to the person she’s addressing. These people have no interest in having or maintaining a free society. Make no mistake. Their ultimate goal is to take from those who are able and give to those who need. Disarmament is an essential part of achieving that goal.

    • Who need? Or who want? And are willing to give power/authority to those that will enable them to keep sucking at the teet?

      But I’m not sure all of them are wanting to deny freedom. I do think most people of this ilk actually just want complete safety. They don’t want to admit the world could have ugly people, mean people, bad people, evil people — people willing to do what you or I would consider unthinkable. They want to create a “safe world”. On the one hand, I can agree with that — we all want to be safe, and it would be wonderful to have a world full of love and good and nothing more. And if it was possible to achieve that, wouldn’t that be nice? But think about what it might take to actually achieve that, and frankly, that’s really a scarier thought… if you take it down the logical path, which few do… they just stop at “wouldn’t it be nice if…” and fail to consider what it would take to get there.

      As well, many don’t want to assume the responsibility required to be safe in this world. They get mad about the food they eat, but what are they doing to ensure they are eating something safe? They expect the FDA or USDA to “keep us safe” but there they go again, delegating the responsibility for their own safety to someone else.. and someone else that has proven track records if 1. failing to “keep us safe” and 2. not always having YOUR best interests at the forefront of their concerns.

      There’s no way to make the world totally safe… and if we really wanted to, we ought to start with larger threats to our safety, like cars or food. Does this mean we shouldn’t bother trying to make the world safe (a common retort)? No, but it does mean that you must consider if your efforts will really make the world safe… or more importantly, if it’ll really make YOU safe and make your life better, and do the same for your fellow man as well — not at the expense of your fellow man.

  3. On target Hsoi, no adjustment needed. So many times during my time in EMS I heard the refrain; “I just want me and mine to be safe.” Well don’t we all want that? How we go about that is the catchy part. Personal responsibility and accountability or have someone else, most often government, take care of that for you? Obviously, you and I take the path that is least easy and are proactive. A former student of mine (Woman’s Self Defense) posted at the Denver Post that when the Police are only minutes away seconds count. She was berated by the usual suspects, called a criminal etc. Then she responded that it would be better to be judged by twelve than carried by (the) six of you! She took the class more than twenty years ago. I love it when students retain knowledge!

    • Funny you should mention Denver.

      I find it interesting they just ran Magpul out of Colorado… and then the other day the DenverPost prints a long article that basically tells you how to “legally” grow your own marijuana. I have nothing against pot (or Magpul), but it’s interesting to see where Colorado’s priorities are.

      This is one reason that while I love libertarian philosophy, I doubt it will ever succeed, because the key factor behind it is personal responsibility… something that seems to be fading in popularity these days. *sigh*

Join the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.