Saturday, June 25, 2011

Why I Have Multiple Personality Disorder

I have been pondering why it took me nearly six decades to figure out that my birth city, Chicago, and my adoptive city, San Francisco, are ever so slightly nuts. Well, I've given up on that, but after seeing two recent takes on one subject, I'm beginning to see why I have so many arguments with myself. Take gun control, please (apologies to Henny Youngman).

Chicago's Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy, recently made a speech at St. Sabina's Church that concluded that lax federal gun sales and distribution laws are "government-sponsored racism." He explained as follows: "I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I'm crazy. Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers across this country, that are killing black and brown children." As a good liberal, he didn't hesitate to blame the rich sellers and manufacturers. "There has to be a recognition of who's paying the price for gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities." Gated communities like the one Rev. Jeremiah Wright lives in? With his armed bodyguards? That kind?

And to clinch the argument, he told the riveted parishioners a tale of when he was police chief in Newark, New Jersey. "When I got home after policing a brutal night of killings, I turned on the TV to relax, and tuned in to Sarah Palin's Alaska. She was caribou hunting and talking about the right to bear arms. Why wasn't she at the crime scene with me?" Uh, because she was in Alaska hunting caribou, you idiot! That's where she's from, and there's a noticeable dearth of caribou in both Newark and Chicago. So, yes, in answer to your question, you're crazy. Was she only shooting black and brown caribou? Is that what you're getting at? Or is it that white people who hunt caribou also like going to Newark to shoot black and brown people. I don't get it.

In San Francisco, racism and gun control is also an issue. The same liberal sponsors who tried to pass a handgun ban a couple years back are at it again. That time, the majority "minority" population joined the whites in defeating the measure, fairly soundly. A similar law in another city had already been declared invalid by the California Supreme Court which decided that California's constitution provided that state law preempts the field as to firearms. But that doesn't stop zealots. And despite rejection by the voters and a clear opinion by the state Supreme Court, they're going to give it another try.

OK, now follow this closely. Several prominent black leaders have denounced the gun-grab movement as being--get ready--racist. Their contention is that the law would take away the only protection most black families have from the violence all around them. According to this line of thought, police would be constantly raiding black homes looking for illegal weapons while leaving those murderous white folks alone in their mansions. The murder rate by guns in the largely black Bay View and Hunters Point section rivals that of Harlem and South Chicago. So 180 degrees from the Chicago viewpoint, the racism in San Francisco is about laws that would be too strict, not too lenient.

It is unlikely that the new gun-grab will even make it onto the ballot this time, but frankly I can't blame anyone--black, white, or otherwise--who feels that there is little enough safety in the high-crime areas without leaving them completely unarmed for self-defense.

So which liberals are right? Is gun control racist because it takes guns away or is gun law racist because it makes gun ownership too easy? Fortunately, I have been away from both cities for over a year now. My head is clearing, and I haven't been a liberal in decades. I decided a long time ago that gun laws, tough or loose, have absolutely nothing to do with racism and everything to do with deciding that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says, and its clear intent is not its clear intent. And now I have the United States Supreme Court on my side. Best of all, if I ask a resident here in Caliente what he or she thinks about gun-control laws, the answer will be "what gun-control laws?" Oh, and incidentally, our murder rate by gun is among the lowest in the state.


Tennessee Jed said...

because life is not meant to be easy, liberals were placed upon the earth to frustrate us and cause consternation. However, since very few things are purely evil, in it's most mild forms, liberalism can be, if not benign, at least modestly amusing, so we can take some modest comfort in that.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Why not look to the founding fathers and their thinking when the second amendment was framed.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason- Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee-American Statesman, 1788.

A gun is as racist as a car so we should look that way?

We had almost moved to the point where racist topics were few an far between, now with a President of color (black?) all we hear is how racist our country is.

What changed in two years that had settled out and become so minimal over two Hundred years.

No where in the above quotes does any reference to ethnicity appear, so why now?

Unknown said...

Tennessee: I thought we already beat the good/evil thing to death on Andrew's conservative books article. LOL

With this latest liberal racial double-think, I was immediately reminded of two things. First, the poster with the sweaty student scratching his head during a test, thinking to himself "just when I had all the answers, they changed all the questions." The other was Faye Dunaway in Chinatown getting slapped around as she said: "My sister (slap), my daughter (slap), my sister (slap) my daughter . . ."

T-Rav said...

Okay, I'll say it. Yes, Superintendent McCarthy, you are in fact crazy. Anyone who makes a bullcrap argument like that with a straight face has to be lacking in the sanity department.

And I'm not touching the good/evil thing anymore. Well, at least not until I recharge and feel like stirring crap up again :-)

Unknown said...

Tehachapi Tom: The New Black Panthers would answer with their predecessors' refrain "power to the people." And by "people," they don't mean us. The Supreme Court has already confirmed (finally) the view of Mason and the other Founders on the Second Amendment, so if you want to go after guns (either direction), use racism as the foundational argument. Don't think for a minute that there aren't liberal lawyers out there right now figuring out a way to argue that the Thirteenth Amendment applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the Second Amendment. Then throw into the mix that federal and state government can "infringe" on fundamental constitutional rights if they can demonstrate a "compelling state interest." What could be a more compelling state interest than protecting the people from racism by banning guns--or making them readily available? Now I'm confused again. LOL

Unknown said...

T-Rav: Cursed is he who stirreth up dissension in his family's house." But then, we kinda like dissension. It makes the day go faster.

I've heard some pretty silly arguments for gun control, but that was one of the silliest. Worst of all, it came from a major city's chief police officer, which makes it both silly and dangerous.

Unknown said...

Another thought just occurred to me. This Chicago police superintendent (comparable to chief of police in other cities) is obviously a politician rather than a cop. Which makes me lament the too-early cancellation of the fine TV series Chicago Code. It had a superintendent who came up through the ranks as a street cop. She formed a special unit to investigate deadly corruption at the highest levels of city government, including an ongoing thread about a black city alderman who was in cahoots with the Irish mob. I guess the concept didn't set too well with the liberals, because the show was canceled before they could even do a closing episode which would have resolved how the alderman was finally caught. And that despite good reviews and decent ratings. Oh well, at least we still have The Glades, where the main character is a former Chicago cop who stepped on too many toes and ended up in Florida.

Tehachapi Tom said...

I went out to weed whack which requires minimal thinking. This passing of nonsense laws was in the processor and had opened it's window
to view but would not close.

Why does the passing of laws that truly do not address any of the real issues we face get so much attention?

I think it because, 1. to face real problems looking for solutions is hard work and requires some real effort, 2. The legislators who are in place do not have the basic human drive to do a good conscientious job so they spout crap instead of substance.

Their oath of office is not taken seriously there for we get this impending collapse of all our predecessors fought and died for.

For Shame on all of them.

Unknown said...

Tehachapi Tom: I guess I can't find much to disagree with in that comment. Politicians are more interested in the show than the go. Making an idiotic argument about racism and guns gets you noticed. Sitting down with a pencil, paper and a calculator to figure out how to reduce our monumental and crippling debt is boring and at best will get you mentioned, then dismissed as a wonk.

Joel Farnham said...


Winning the argument is more about tactics than substance. Hence a non-sensical race card is played.

I think, since the Jornolist group has been outed, the liberals have been cut loose and haven't had the chance to coordinate their talking points.

Unknown said...

Joel: They also make the mistake of forgetting that when New York or Chicago sneezes, San Francisco and Los Angeles get a cold. They can't compartmentalize their local news the way they used to be able to do. I'm also amused by how many of them (and us) actually believe that something they say in a closed meeting (or a church) won't get out to the public. We have the delightful ability now to compare notes and fact check. As we have both mentioned before, much of this is thanks to the internet.

StanH said...

As many have said, “the race card is maxed out!” It may be of interest to point out that this is the Rev, Pfleger’s church, you know the one who said, “America is the greatest sin against God,” vehement supporter of Rev Wright, and subsequently our Barry, who never listened to what his minister said in twenty years sitting in his pews –wink-wink-nod-nod. These statements by white politicians in black churches are a simple diversion, so they don’t have to explain why they shirk their responsibilities to the black communities as a whole. This also allows “black leadership” to keep the herd in the pen.

As an aside I read where Cook County has $108Billion in unfunded pension liabilities, what could go wrong. Maybe this is why they don’t want guns around? When gravity takes over and this invariably crashes to the ground, a mob would be bad enough, a mob with guns. Would be doubly bad…just a thought.

Unknown said...

Stan: Thanks. I had meant to mention that it was Father Pfleger's church in the article, but I was so busy trying not to sputter through the article, that I neglected to do that.

As for the armed mob going after the politicians--yep.

Post a Comment