Sportswriter says NRA the new KKK, or something

posted at 8:01 am on December 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Who says you have to wait for election season to get truly ignorant political commentary?  Sportswriter Jason Whitlock, who inspired Bob Costas’ rant on NBC’s Sunday Night Football that blamed guns for the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, told Roland Martin that not only are guns to blame for the crimes, but that the NRA is the new KKK for defending gun rights for all Americans:

“Sports gets so much attention, and people tune out the real world, that I try to take advantage of the opportunity to talk about the real world when sports lends itself to that and try to open people’s eyes,” Whitlock said.

“You know, I did not go as far as I’d like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America’s gun culture — I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests [at heart].”

Unfortunately, we still have the old KKK with us, which is bad enough.  But equating an interest group of gun owners with a hate group, especially one with the history of the KKK, goes beyond sheer ahistorical nonsense to horrid demagoguery.  Never mind that the NRA has many gun owners of all colors and creeds, as Eric Puryear pointed out four years ago to other ignorant accusations that defending the Second Amendment was somehow racist; the supposed argument in this case is that opposing government confiscation of every firearm in America is somehow a symptom of xenophobia and hatred.

All you need is love … and the government seizure of your means of self defense.  Oooooo-kay.

Cheap and obvious demagoguery usually gets deployed for a purpose.  My column for The Week points out that while sports analysts like Whitlock and Costas heap blame on the gun and call the NRA the new KKK, they get to avoid some tough questions about one of the industries that puts bread on their own tables:

Costas’ brand of knee-jerk speculation cuts both ways. After all, Belcher played in one of the most violent mass-market sports in the world. Did that have anything to do with the crime? Deadspin reports that Belcher sustained a concussion on Nov. 18, and had been taking medication for it — all while drinking large amounts of alcohol, according to a source close to Belcher. “If you review the footage of the Cincinnati game, he took a few hits to the head directly,” an unnamed friend of Belcher’s told Deadspin‘s Isaac Rauch in a series of emails. That mixture exacerbated tensions at home, where Perkins had just returned after the couple’s separation, according to the source.

And when it comes to Belcher taking his own life… sadly, this isn’t the first time that we’ve seen an NFL player commit suicide. There have been six suicides in the past two years, in fact. The NFL has recently, and belatedly, begun taking steps to prevent long-term brain damage to its players. The changes have been a long time coming, and might not be enough. As the New York Daily News reported on Sunday, evidence shows that chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) might not come just from concussions, “but also from repeated, less spectacular blows to the head — calling into question the future of America’s most popular sport.”

Did the concussion and/or Belcher’s medication cause him to kill? That kind of speculation becomes a lot more uncomfortable for commentators and networks that rely on the NFL for ratings and ad revenue, while gun manufacturers and owners make for a much safer target — pun intended. A medical cause seems a bit more likely than just having a handgun — but plenty of players have concussions without killing themselves or others. Perhaps sports experts should stick to sports, and report honestly on the dangers players face on the field, while we all let the police and medical experts investigate crimes themselves.

While six suicides in two years may not seem like a strong correlation to violence in the NFL, consider the correlation Costas and Whitlock ask us to make to render Belcher — and perhaps the NFL — blameless for the murder-suicide:

Let’s first get the facts straight about firearms and handguns in the U.S. Estimates vary widely on the number of households with firearms, but Gallup’s survey in 2005 put it at 42 percent. With roughly 150 million households in the U.S., that means that a gun is present in roughly 63 million households. Yet the number of murders committed by firearm in 2011, according to FBI statistics, was 8,583. That represents 0.0136 percent of all firearm-owning households. Murders by handgun came to 6,220, which makes that percentage 0.0099 percent. If guns caused murders, we’d be seeing a lot more murders. More than 99 percent of Americans seem to be capable of owning guns without committing murder, which demolishes the blame-the-gun argument.

Cheap demagoguery indeed.  The problem with people killing people existed before guns, it exists with guns, and it would exist when guns are entirely absent.  That’s because the problem doesn’t lie with the gun, or the knife (over 1600 murders by knife in 2011, by the way), or the baseball bat.  It lies with the person who chooses to kill over real or imagined slights.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Burke on December 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

So because they believe it to be true it is? That may be true for the average man on the street because it has been fed to him as a tactic by politicians and the media. So what’s the answer? Out give the Democrats?

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM

in favor of defending the right of rich people to have low taxes.

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Really? I guess stupidity has no bounds, “rich” people have low taxes…so you don’t think they pay their “fair” share?

Good grief, I am most sure you have no idea how ignorant your statement is…or how you have been manipulated to believe that.

Congratualtions on being so easily mislead, so easily a puppet…gee, I wonder how Obama got elected…rich people have low taxes, that’s how…I shake my head in disbelief…it just amazes me how stupid ill informed people are…simply amazing, actually shocking.

Rich people have low taxes…

right2bright on December 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Surprise surprise, an african american doesn’t want to focus on the fact that the culture in his community is absolute garbage and that the crime rate among his race is astronomical and that there are major substance abuse problems which lead to domestic violence among his race, but instead wants to blame the gun. Its always someone or something elses fault when it comes to addressing the issues in the black community. Enough already.

thphilli on December 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

All kidding aside. There are enough gun laws. In Cumberland County, NC I had to wait exactly three days for a background check and gun permit. The last ones we applied for in Hoke County, NC took two and three weeks respectively for my wife and I. (For a three day wait!)

hawkdriver on December 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM

That sucks. How is NC doing their background checks?
When I bought my new S&W M&P9 a few weeks ago, the check took 2 hours – and that was only because there were so many people buying guns (right after the election) that the Colorado system was overloaded and backed up. If not for so many buyers at one time, its typically just a few minutes.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

There is a huge difference in what the Republican fight for and how it is portrayed in the media. That you buy into it is disheartening. Unless you mean we should stop complaining about the coverage we get and work on the message itself. When people talk about a 15% tax rate for the rich, no one ever mentions that this is on invested money that has already been taxed once at income level rates. I don’t see the media working that little nugget of truth into the equation, do you?

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Libfree is right about one thing…many conservatives do arm themselves for protection from Black and Brown crime. Why? Because the majority of murders in the US are perpetrated by young black men. Less than 2-3% of the population. And other violent crime? Don’t get me started.

As someone else said above, Blacks need to clean up their own cultural issues.

BierManVA on December 4, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I don’t buy that highlighted part at all – but I understand what you’re saying.
I’m armed against criminals – regardless of what color they might be.
But as you point out, given the statistics, if I should ever have to shoot a criminal there’e a high probability he will be a minority.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 11:30 AM

More background.

a capella on December 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM

#FireCostas: Backlash over Bob Costas anti-gun rant, double standards erupts
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/03/firecostas-backlash-over-bob-costas-anti-gun-rant-double-standards-erupts/

As Twitchy reported, Bob Costas hijacked Sunday Night Football with a sanctimonious anti-gun lecture. The reaction was, of course, fast and furious. It continues today.

Indeed. Twitter users are still livid and backlash is erupting. First, #CostasLogic brings the funny.

Let’s just get to the point and ban death. #CostasLogic—
Amy (@CAAmyO) December 03, 2012

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Simple enough. NRA should only support 2nd Amendment rights for white people. Would that satisfy Whimplock, perhaps?
/s

Marcola on December 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM

So yes, blacks need to clean up their issues, but we need to help blacks by pointing out there’s a better way.

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Romney tried at the NAACP convention. He got boooed.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I think firing him is overkill. No pun intended.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Twitpic of the day: Bob Costas and O.J. Simpson
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/03/twitpic-of-the-day-bob-costas-and-o-j-simpson/

An extemely awkward picture of Bob Costas: http://t.co/AFARLzaF (from @FoolishReporter)

Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) December 03, 2012

Yesterday, Twitter users slammed anti-gun zealot/sportscaster Bob Costas with a reality-based reminder about the bow-and-arrow domestic violence killings in Casper, Wyoming. Today, Second Amendment supporters tried to inject more sense into the public square with a reminder about one of Costas’ own blood-spattered colleagues and the infamous crime that left Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman dead.

Yes, Bob Costas, guns are the problem. Nicole Brown Simpson would be alive today if OJ hadn’t shot her with that knife.—
Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) December 03, 2012

Dear Bob Costas: If there was no gun, O.J. Simpson couldn’t have…. oops. #stupid—
Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) December 03, 2012

Dear Bob Costas…if we’d only had knife control Nicole Brown Simpson would still be alive. #jackass #getaclue—
Jonathan Blackman (@jxb0061) December 03, 2012

Bob Costas would prefer NFL players stabbed their better-halfs to death, ala O.J. Simpson, rather than shooting them…what a dumbass.—
The Dawghouse (@dawghouseradio) December 03, 2012

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

a capella on December 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM

He sounds like a “typical” abuser. These young ladies need to read the rest of the story about athletes and child support, it doesn’t usually end as they think it will. Oddly enough when the career ends, so does the money, and like many of people, they did not plan for the future.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

So yes, blacks need to clean up their issues, but we need to help blacks by pointing out there’s a better way.

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Romney tried at the NAACP convention. He got boooed.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM

He also got some applause, IIRC for what he said about education.

Honestly, I don’t know how to reach them. I want them to be able to choose better schools and have employment opportunities, and I want them to stop killing each other. But since I advocate self defense rights for all law abiding people, I am a racist. Whatever. I am about to throw in the towel. Let’s just have Thunderdome, or pray for SMOD. Really. I’ve has enough.

juliesa on December 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

The NRA which unfortunately has lobbied against any decent gun control measure needs to embrace stiff penalties for those caught carrying illegal weapons. We need to lock up these thugs and their sellers for 30 years.

Huh? The NRA has advocated that judges and prosecutors enforce the laws already on the books. After all, what good is it to write new laws, if you’re not willing to enforce those that are already in existence?

We had a police officer killed by a punk, who had been arrested for assault involving a firearm, but his charges were plea bargained to a lesser crime. As a result, the punk was back out on the streets in no time. Had he served time for the gun-related charge, that police officer would still be alive. The courts are all too eager to clear their calendars, and if that means avoiding a trial by accepting a plea deal – they’ll do it.

The NRA wants the courts to enforce existing laws – and would love it if the “thugs” were locked-up for 30 years. Unfortunately that would probably mean the imprisonment of more minorities than whites – and we can’t have that.

Hill60 on December 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Belcher lived a thug’s life long before this shooting. If not for the NFL, he likely would have been in prison or dead.

zoyclem on December 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I think firing him is overkill. No pun intended.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

It’s makes the point that we should hold the Left to the same standards that they hold of the right.

Eye for and eye, etc.

Those in the Leftist media shouldn’t be immune from criticism.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

They are immune to our criticism. I’m not a liberal, I don’t want people who don’t agree with me to lose their livelihood. Heap on all the criticism possible and demand an apology for the inappropriate co-opting of the national airwaves, job loss is too much. Yes, I am aware they wouldn’t do the same for anyone on the Right.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM

zoyclem on December 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I think that is going to be story that comes out in the end also.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM

It is much more likely that the audience will become conflicted when its that up close and personal. Its just so obvious that if people had to kill each other with their bare hands that there would be less murder, it would be much harder for people to go through with it. No one is arguing that there would be NO murder, but there would be less.

Libfreeordie

Arguing movies is very strange….also you left out the millions of documented saves by handguns every year. How do you expect elderly grandmothers to fend off thugs with a knife? Handguns give power to the elderly, the weak, the infirm, the female against the rapist, the single man against the gang, the father against mob of home invaders. Further, liberals have worked for years to remove defensive knifes from the market, I think here in Seattle, the longest knife allowed to be “carried” is 3 1/2 inches. If you are going to ban guns, can we have effective defensive knives back? Swords? And carry them?

The Japanese have a philosophy called Katsujin-ken Satsujin-to (sometimes, Katsujinken satsujinken) meaning “The sword which kills is the sword which gives life.”

They are often rendered more explicitly in English as “The sword which cuts down evil is the sword which preserves life.”

This adage is attributed to the masters of Yagyu school, the Tokugawa shoguns’ personal instructors in swordsmanship.

And those Yagyu school sword sensei-s were right. The rightful use of weapons is essential in an imperfect world to defend innocent lives against unjust violence.

A wider commitment to skill at arms and a more common readiness to defend the innocent would be infinitely more effective at saving the lives of victims of attacks by madmen and criminals than a totalitarian program attempting to enforce universal disarmament.

Lib, it comes down to either equality of force between evil or good or rolling on your back to the murderer, the gang or the mob.

Choose.

Bulletchaser on December 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Belcher spent night with a gal pal before killing
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/chief_other_girl_uULWUcuM7p4tJb2PLeaITP

Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher had a boozy dinner with another woman and spent the night at her apartment before he went home, fought with and killed his girlfriend.

‘If Jovan Belcher did not possess some booze the night before, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive’

Queens dad pushed to his death by madman in Times Square subway station
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nightmare_on_subway_tracks_GgvCtkeJj6cTeyxHns2VNP

A Queens dad trying to protect fellow straphangers from a deranged man on a Times Square subway platform was hurled onto the tracks by the lunatic and fatally crushed by a train yesterday, cops and witnesses said.

‘If the attacker didn’t possess a subway token, Ki Suk Hanhe would be alive today.’

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Sorry Libs… The NRA Was There to Help Blacks Defend Themselves From KKK Democrats, Not the Other Way Around
(gatewaypundit)

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

Obviously, Whitlock is as ignorant as he is offensive.
The NRA actually helped blacks defend themselves from violent KKK Democrats in the south, not the other way around.

Ann Coulter wrote about the history of blacks and the NRA back in April.

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Jason liked to mix his politics and sports while he was a sports writer here in Kansas City. He also loved to throw the racist flag. When he and several of his friends were not allowed into a bar (more than on one occasion at different establishments)because they were in violation of the dress code, he wrote an article in the sports section decrying racism. He loved going on his gun rants often, blaming the gun, not responsible owners.

It’s funny that Jason never blamed his fork for being fat, but was OK with blaming the gun for violence.

mwdiver on December 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Sorry Libs… The NRA Was There to Help Blacks Defend Themselves From KKK Democrats, Not the Other Way Around
(gatewaypundit)

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana.

Obviously, Whitlock is as ignorant as he is offensive.
The NRA actually helped blacks defend themselves from violent KKK Democrats in the south, not the other way around.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Ann Coulter wrote about the history of blacks and the NRA back in April.

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Romney tried at the NAACP convention. He got boooed.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Romney visited an inner-city black neighborhood in Philly. Not only did he get booed, but he got bottles thrown at him.

sentinelrules on December 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Here’s what folks don’t seem to understand. Despite the fact that Belcher could have killed his girlfriend and himself without a gun, it made it so much easier for him to do so. As evidenced by the the decision to use a gun. Using an instrument, from a geographic distance does so much to make the violence less intimate and therefore, easier to perform. This is why movies are filled with rapid fire machine fun murder sprees by the “heros” but rarely do we see a brutal knifing by the hero because it is intimate and significantly more intense. It is much more likely that the audience will become conflicted when its that up close and personal. Its just so obvious that if people had to kill each other with their bare hands that there would be less murder, it would be much harder for people to go through with it. No one is arguing that there would be NO murder, but there would be less.

Also legalizing drugs and ending the black market for drugs makes inner city violence go down the tubes as nearly all of it is about protecting gang territory.

libfreeordie on December 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM

I realize you are a troll, but this argument ought to be addressed nonetheless.

You are quite correct that the use of a firearm makes it easier to kill someone. It doesn’t matter if you are an NFL linebacker or a 90 pound benchwarmer.

It is really easy to think that this means we’ll have more murders because guns make it so easy to do. The problem with your theory is the data does not back you up. As our society has loosened gun restrictions, we’ve had fewer murders, not more. Because of the inability to completely separate out the myriad of causes for this decrease in crime, we can’t say for certain that more guns means less crime. We can, however, say with significant certainty that more guns MAY mean less crime and at least means no change in crime.

The reason for this is simple: a gun makes it easier to kill someone. You saw this as a reason murder must go up. It is, in fact, a mitigating factor: if we actually achieved the world without guns, this linebacker would have still rather easily killed his girlfriend. Her only chance at defense against someone so physically beyond her would have been a firearm.

That’s why more guns likely means less crime: in the world without firearms, brute force wins. In our world, every criminal knows there is a non-zero chance his target will be armed. As a result, we see most criminals in this country taking care to commit crimes when people are not around, while in anti-gun utopias like Great Britain, we see an increase in home invasions. The criminals there know that brute force wins. Here, there is a significant chance of meeting an armed home owner if you break in. (Especially in the gun-friendly areas.)

So, yes, guns make it easier to kill someone. That is the best argument for the second amendment: without guns, the stong will always defeat the weak.

makattak on December 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Romney visited an inner-city black neighborhood in Philly. Not only did he get booed, but he got bottles thrown at him.

sentinelrules on December 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

And the libtards keep asking why Republicans don’t go to the inner cities more. The fact is, the minorities in the inner cities don’t want to hear the Republican message vecause its about earning a living, personal responsibility, and self-reliance instead of free handouts.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM

There has to be a Pigford settlement somewhere.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM

makattak on December 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

+1000

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

makattak on December 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I’ll take that argument in a little bit of a different direction and say that perhaps it’s up to the individual to exercise some self-restraint. Yes, it’s easier than beating someone to death, but if you still have the trigger to hurt someone isn’t that the individual’s issue?

Why are we advocating restrictions because people are weak and out of control? Why is the onus not put on the individual to deal with their issues rather than making it a societal issue?

This is the liberal mantra in a nutshell – no personal responsibility, no restrictions that aren’t imposed on everyone because we certainly can’t ask the individual to police themselves and *not kill someone*.

kim roy on December 4, 2012 at 1:01 PM

kim roy on December 4, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Your point fits quite well with makattak’s point.
The blame for the criminal act needs to be put on the criminal – not whatever tool he happens to use to commit the crime.
And if the victim has a better tool, and kills the criminal in self-defense, the point should be clearly made that what happened was the criminal’s fault, and he got what he deserved.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 1:18 PM

It’s makes the point that we should hold the Left to the same standards that they hold of the right.

Eye for and eye, etc.

Those in the Leftist media shouldn’t be immune from criticism.

Galt2009 on December 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I agree 100%

If we don’t the left will win. We did not win the Revolution by asking King George to please be nice….we fired him!

We need a public boycott NBC and the NFL on NBC, or some kind of boycott on the advertisers. We demand an apology or Costas gone. Same with Whitlock who works for Foxsports.com (Thanks Fox for giving this doofus a job).

We are fighting for an individual liberty no different than freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

William Eaton on December 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Here’s what folks don’t seem to understand. Despite the fact that Belcher could have killed his girlfriend and himself without a gun, it made it so much easier for him to do so. As evidenced by the the decision to use a gun. Using an instrument, from a geographic distance does so much to make the violence less intimate and therefore, easier to perform. This is why movies are filled with rapid fire machine fun murder sprees by the “heros” but rarely do we see a brutal knifing by the hero because it is intimate and significantly more intense. It is much more likely that the audience will become conflicted when its that up close and personal. Its just so obvious that if people had to kill each other with their bare hands that there would be less murder, it would be much harder for people to go through with it. No one is arguing that there would be NO murder, but there would be less.

Also legalizing drugs and ending the black market for drugs makes inner city violence go down the tubes as nearly all of it is about protecting gang territory.

libfreeordie on December 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Idiocy, and I mean idiocy, from one end to the other. Does this fool really think it is easier for a thug to go to gun dealer and do all the paperwork and the background check than it is to go down to the corner in the hood and buy a gun on the street? If he does, he knows nothing about real life in the hood.

As for gangs and ghettos, they go together like love and marriage. There have always been gangs in ghettos, with or without drug trafficking. It is the human condition.

novaculus on December 4, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Apparently, the NFL has disabled comments on all articles relating to the murderer. Guess they couldn’t handle the massive pushback over Costas’s inexcusable regurgitation of Whitlock’s abject tripe during Sunday Night Football.

Cowards.

Christien on December 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM

*disabled all comments on their web site re: the murderer

Christien on December 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Also legalizing drugs and ending the black market for drugs makes inner city violence go down the tubes as nearly all of it is about protecting gang territory.

libfreeordie on December 4, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Just to make it clear…living in the “hood” is not that same as you living with your aunt.

You obviously know nothing about gangs…take drugs out, and guess what you would have…yeah, that’s right, gangs. Drugs are a by-product, robbery, killings, counterfeiting, auto-theft, insurance claims, strong-arm, protection, gambling, numbers game, black market, and many other “social inter-action” takes place.

right2bright on December 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM

novaculus on December 4, 2012 at 2:41 PM

He or she is just a kid trying to find their way…you can tell by their naive way at looking at things, they are maybe 24 yrs old, max, more like 19 to 20…not too bright, and certainly not very experienced in life, probably looking for their first time real job, besides working at McD’s…

right2bright on December 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Well, if the NRA/guns is the new KKK because they are killing Blacks, then they need to outlaw Planned Parenthood due to the fact that roughly 40% of abortions are performed in the Black community. So I think that PP is responsible for more deaths than any guns,,so lets call a spade a spade,,shall we.

retiredeagle on December 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM

That sucks. How is NC doing their background checks?
When I bought my new S&W M&P9 a few weeks ago, the check took 2 hours – and that was only because there were so many people buying guns (right after the election) that the Colorado system was overloaded and backed up. If not for so many buyers at one time, its typically just a few minutes.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Cumberland won’t let you have it much sooner than that. Three days seems to be their rule. Hoke is more rural and more like a sherrif’d department. So, they just take longer. At five dollars a piece, I just get several at a time.

hawkdriver on December 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Which is funny, because Lincoln was a Republican. And the GOP has fought against racism for its entire existence. But we never seem to tell that story. Somehow we abandoned the fight for free black people to succeed, in favor of defending the right of rich people to have low taxes.

hawksruleva on December 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I have to agree with you there, hawksruleva, on all your points. And, yes, it is ironic.

Of course, the truth is that Republicans are not really “defending the right of rich people to have low taxes.” What they’re really defending is a structure of economic incentives which promotes fairness (in the old sense of the word, meaning equality of opportunity) and which has been a fantastic engine of wealth not just for our country but the entire world. Democrats are dismantling that system with a pattern of crude bribes and crony favoritism, and that’s what Republicans really dislike. But there’s a lot of stupid in this country these days, and it’s easier just to buy into the way Democrats have tarred the Republicans than do critical thinking and arrive at the truth.

Burke on December 4, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Cumberland won’t let you have it much sooner than that. Three days seems to be their rule. Hoke is more rural and more like a sherrif’d department. So, they just take longer. At five dollars a piece, I just get several at a time.

hawkdriver on December 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM

And you have to pay for the background check too? That’s nuts.
No cost in Colorado – unless it’s just figured into the gun dealer’s overhead cost so we don’t see it. But then again, Colorado (all or most, not sure) is a “must issue” state for concealed carry permits as well – as long as you take a safety course and pass the basic background check.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM

So because they [liberals] believe it [their religion] to be true it is?

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I wouldn’t say so. But it will help Republicans come to a realistic understanding of our cultural and political problems if we begin by recognizing that liberals sincerely believe what they say. We should understand their vision first before attempting to answer it. That’s part of what made Reagan great, I think; he really “got” liberals and what they were trying to do. The same is true for Thomas Sowell who started at Harvard as a Marxist.

So what’s the answer? Out give the Democrats?

A beginning to the answer comes from acknowledging that there may actually be no solution and that we are in a desperately sad and tragic crisis. At least that’s realism. As Rush said directly after the election (and he was correct about this as he is about so many other things): “They outnumber us now.” A dictator or dictatorial party that has no qualms about offering goodies to the majority of non-producing citizens will never lose another election. As Benjamin Franklin said, “When the country learns it can vote itself other people’s money, the nation will end.”

Helping to cloak the greed of the many is the myth–namely, the new liberal-fascist myth of a Borg-collective utopian ideal– which gives this majority the cover they require to pretend that they are acting from noble motives. At the very least, I think conservatives should attempt to understand this myth and deconstruct it so that some at least will see it for what it is, a combination of naivete on the one hand and camouflage for corrupt acquisitiveness on the other.

Burke on December 4, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Burke on December 4, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Any ideas who the messenger should be? It’s a daunting prospect when the liberals own the media.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Whitlock always brings up race in his articles..to me, he’s the real racist..also st. louis post dispatch writer Brian Burwell is just like him

sadsushi on December 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM

hawkdriver on December 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM

And you have to pay for the background check too? That’s nuts.
No cost in Colorado – unless it’s just figured into the gun dealer’s overhead cost so we don’t see it. But then again, Colorado (all or most, not sure) is a “must issue” state for concealed carry permits as well – as long as you take a safety course and pass the basic background check.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM

NC is actually, (except for the wait for handguns), very weapons friendly. The State Attorney Generals office helped me make sure I’d done everything propery to secure a weapon I’d bought for a husband of one of our more distingusihed Hot Air commenters. They’re out of staters so it was just a bit confusing whether a rifle could be sold from NC to another state resident. And I really just had to confirm the weapon was legal in their state.

No big deal.

hawkdriver on December 4, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Any ideas who the messenger should be? It’s a daunting prospect when the liberals own the media.

Cindy Munford on December 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Search me, Cindy. I can’t think of anyone in particular. I like quite a few politicians out there but doubt any have much of a chance when running against a dictator offering free stuff. And that’s what Democrats will be doing from now on, I have a feeling, since it worked so well this last election.

Honestly, I think if Reagan were running these days, he’d lose in a landslide. What does that tell you about our culture and world?

Count me as one of those who believe we’re headed over the cliff and there’s nothing much we can do about it except find our favorite political cartoonist so that we can smile a little on the way down. I know that’s pathetic, but it’s the best I can come up with.

Burke on December 4, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Not only is Costas’ brand damaged, he looks like an utter douchebag for even mentioning Whitlock’s name.

Yeah, I’m going to watch NBC sports so I can see Costas.

kens on December 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3