veiled4allah: black man with a gun veiled4allah: black man with a gunAll comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
My own entry was in reference to one or more posts elsewhere. If you'd like to add a link to your post there, add the following to the list of URLs that you ping:
(no posts pinged)
Take a quick peek at the post(s) I pinged:
(no posts pinged)
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 09, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: racism. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: gun control, right arms, second amendment, anti gun, gun rights, people, gun, train, Train, right, most, comments, rights, arms, amendment, being, government, because, feel, should, black, Arms, those, see, race
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with racism
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: racism
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: racism
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: racism
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: racism
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: racism
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: racism
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title black man with a gun (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) racism (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
I beg to differ.While I do agree that the comments I have seen accusing S-Train of fabricating the story or certain parts are for the most part shallow, I do take issue with your assertions that S-Train is being abandoned by the 'right wing gun right supporters' because he is black & the attack was racially motivated.
I offer you the following links to other blogs concerning S-Train's experience:
The Spoons Experience
Instapundit
Bill St. Clair (scroll down a bit)
Clayton Cramer
Rocket Jones
Kim DuToit
& finally my post about the subject
Publicola
At worst some of the posts are neutral, but most are supportive of S-Train if for no other reason than he was a person defending himself. Anytime race was mentioned it was either to say that it simply didn't matter or to show that it is uncommon to hear about a black man using a gun justifiably because the mainstream media want to encourage dependence within minority (& majority) groups.
I believe that most pro- Right to Arms bloggers that I'm aware of will agree that race is irrelevant in such matters. After all gun control started off as a racist measure, so we're not unfamiliar with the idea that all people should have their rights respected.
Concerning your though experiment, for me the race &/or religion (religion to a lesser extent because it is an idealogical differentiation, not a physical one) of the attacker & defender would be of little relevance in condoning or condemning his/her actions. What would matter would be the circumstances. If someone breaks into another persons house, it is assumed that the intruder is willing to do harm to the occupant & the use of any reasonable amount of force to incapacitate the intruder is justified. (By reasonable I mean a non-indiscrimanent weapon - throwing a hand grenade around the corner would be a bit much.
Would it be any different for you if a white person shot a black intruder who muttered that he wanted to 'kill all you crackers"?
BTW, most bias S-Train will receive is not because of his race. It's because he defended himself with a firearm. The papers don't like it to get out that a person can defend themself. It is common in all self defense shootings regardless of race for the matter to be ignored or mentioned hastily by the press. Ditto for the ACLU & the NAACP. They have anti-gun agendas that would not be served by honoring anyone, even a member of a group they claim to represent, who uses a firearm for legitimate self defense.
note: comment edited to add hyperlinks
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
I apologize that my post was unclear in meaning. By "commentors" I meant people who were posting comments at the S-Train site; if I had meant to refer to conservative bloggers I would have said "bloggers" or referred to "blogs". I am aware that Clayton Cramer and Glenn Reynolds were neutral - Clayton Cramer after all wrote about "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" so I should bloody well hope he supports in reality what he claims to in theory. However, it seems clear that some of the people who followed their links to S-Train were not so neutral.While most of the comments were neutral or supportive, the ones that were negative struck me as being racially-motivated, particularly the one that P6 mentioned. And let's not forget the people who have been sending hate mail and making phone calls. I did not get the impression at all that these were outraged liberals of the ACLU or NAACP variety.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
Al-MunaqabahThe comment I was attempting to address was:
"You would think that S-Train would be a hero to right-wing gun rights supporters"
I pointed to blogs because that was simply the ost convenient way of showing that to most pro-Right to Arms people, his actions were laudable.
I do agree that there was some racial motivations for at least some of the commentors who questioned S-Train's honesty, but in my experience any person of any color would have received a similar proportion of critics based on anti gun rather than racial motivations.
But I confess I do not know the scope or nature of the e-mails & other non-public communications that S-Train received, so I could be mistaken about the proportion of negative comments that were racially motivated as oppossed to anti-gun motivated.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
I want to thank you for your feedback. I've made some modifications to my original blog entry to clarify my meaning and invited readers to check out the comments to follow the links that you've provided.I would be interested if you could point me to specific instances of hateful comments or blog entries made by gun-control supporters or in general bad behavior by self-identified gun-control supporters.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
I did some checking & in all of the posts S-Train made about the incident & its aftermath, there were 4 people who posted 16 comments that were skeptical of S-train. 1 of the skeptics only posted once & his skepticism was not racially motivated, & 1 of the skeptics recanted in a later post (apologized for causing S-Train grief) but while mentioning race it seems more of a peripheral issue from him. Of the two remaining P6 has discussed one in depth. It appears plausible that race did in some manner motivate his skepticism, though to what level (a deep hatred of black people vs. misunderstandings about black people) could be argued. I would lean towards the misunderstanding of race explanation solely because he seems ignorant of a couple of other issues & thus the ignorance explanation would seem consistent, though I do not rule out that it could be deeper than that. The remaining skeptic seems racially motivated, but (& I could be wrong) it seems more like the ignorant kind of racism as opposses to the actively hateful kind.Still of the 16 comments 8 were made by the same skeptic (whom P6 has already discussed.
There were 4 neutral comments, 2 of which expressed pro-gun control views & 1 which could be seen as leaning that way.
There were 81 supportive comments from 60 different commenters.
So it would seem a small minority of commenters did most of the damage. Again i concede that I do not know the number or nature of the e-mails & other non public communications.
I do still think that if S-Train were white, he would have gotten at least as many negative comments from anti-gunners, & possibly their statements would have been more rude than what he did receive. No one's called him a murderer yet, or a bloodthirsty savage. Then again I do not know what e-mail he's received so I could be wrong.
As to your request, I cannot honestly say, outside of certain issues & schisms inside the pro-Right to Arms side of things, that any pro-Right to Arms bloggers or writers have made any hateful statements towards anyone, except those who attempt to disarm us all. But as far as race, nope. A few here & there have supported racial, or perhaps more accurately religious profiling in the wake of the september 11th attacks, but generally they all feel that a populace not denied its Right to Arms while flying would be of the most benefit.
As far as hateful or harmful things said by our opponents, there's plenty. But it's mostly done in implication. For example saying that firearms disproportionately harm the black communities & thereby implying that black people are not capable of responsibly owning Arms therefore they should be denied them.
If you visit my blog I have posts sorted by category on the left hand margin. Or you may just hit this link for Lawsuits & Court Cases. It's filled with cases that involve disarming civilians who have done nothing to justify their disarmament, as well as law suits filed by the NAACP against the gunmakers. Actually the NAACP has said perhaps the most negative things about firearms & race in a lawsuit they filed against several gun manufacturers. The Klu Klux Klan even filed an Amicus Curiea in their support!
But if you go to the gun control organization's sites, you should be able to dig around enough to see that they view us all as irresponisble children who should be governed as to what we can have & can't have. & there should be bonus rage for you if you understand the origin of the phrase 'saturday night special'. They often use the higher rates of violence in the bigger cities to support their claims, & they occassional make reference to the higher minority populations in those cities.
But the government by far is the worst perpetrater of racial division. So in its policies & statements you'll find enough to keep you occupied for quite a while. If your blood pressure can stand it, watch C-Span when they have live meetings of congress.
As for anti-gun commenters saying hateful or ignorant things, I see most of them in either the comments sections of pro-Right to Arms blogs, or in Letters to the Editor sections of newspapers. & those are mainly directed towards gun owners or guns in general.
Forgive my digressions...perhaps the most accessible source for anti-gunners remarking on race in a negatve way, at least through implications, is the newspapers. Just about any shooting that heppens in an area with a large minority population will bring out a spokesperson of an anti-gun group, who will make statements to the effect of the violence being the result of irresponsible gun makers who peddle cheap firearms to minorities who are influenced by the evil nature of the inanimate object. & every 'gun-buyback' story is usually a good source for those kind of comments. That's if you disregard the con being pulled on the people who would turn in their means of self defense for tickets to a concert, or some other such trinket.
Then again it would depend on your perspective. I see all those things as condescending because I am a proponnent of everyone being armed & being responsible for their actions. Others see it as merely attempts to solve a problem.
Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the Right to Arms?
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
Thanks for taking the time to do all that research and for giving further background information. I certainly did not mean to imply that gun-control supporters in general are not just as capable of or likely to engage in bad or hateful behavior as any other group, merely that I had not noticed them doing so in this particular instance nor gotten the impression that more than a few of the troublemakers at S-Train's blog were motivated by gun-control ideas.I am generally supportive of the right to bear arms but do not consider myself an "advocate" for it in any way. I feel that some gun rights organizations give what I consider to be an excessive amount of emphasis to the Second Amendment and give what I consider to be an insufficient amount of emphasis to the rest of the Bill of Rights. I believe that reasonable restrictions can and may be placed on firearms ownership in the interests of public safety and therefore I do not agree with those who seem to feel that any restriction is an act of tyranny. This does not necessarily mean that existing gun-control laws are "reasonable restrictions", however, merely that it is possible to have laws restricting gun ownership that are reasonable. Whether existing laws are or not is something I do not know enough about to give an informed opinion on.
I believe that there is a continuing racist assumption on the part of some people (who may be either pro- or anti-gun) that a non-white person with a gun is automatically dangerous or displaying an "inherent" tendency to violence, and that these people would like to see some or even all non-white individuals and groups completely disarmed while not similarly limiting gun ownership by whites. I find this deeply disturbing not so much in itself but as a sign of a deeper attitude, one that thinks it's OK if non-white people have different and lesser rights across the board.
Philosophically, I believe that one should never initiate force or violence against another but may respond in self-defense or the defense of others as much as is needed to preserve life and safety. I don't know all the details of what happened to S-Train but I feel that shooting to disable, as he did, was the most correct course of action and that shooting to kill would only have been morally acceptable if nothing less would stop the intruders. He is the only person who could make that judgment of his own circumstances; I would not presume to judge for him without having been there.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
The hostility S-Train got wasn't because of gun ownership, it was because of his race.I tried to engage one of them, who had continued to post challenges--the one who made me put up the stats in a very-badly-spelled-due-to-writing-while-annoyed post. When I said up front that he had no need to feel threatened he admitted that he did, indeed, feel threatened. that "[Black people] are a very violent people."
Given the current rhetoric, Muslims have as much reason for concern about this kind of response as Black people do. Maybe more.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
Yes. I have noticed this in a number of instances. The Virginia "jihad cell" liked to play paintball. An acceptable pastime for Second Amendment-loving (white) Americans but evidence of their terrorist inclinations for Muslims. Similarly, the Portland group went out to practice target shooting. Again, an acceptable pastime for Second Amendment-loving (white) Americans but evidence of terrorist inclinations for Muslims. (Both of these groups may in fact be terrorists, but their exercise of their Second Amendment rights is not proof by itself of that, and that is the point I'm trying to make). I have even seen young Muslim men who discuss their interest in learning about firearms at a blog or discussion forum depicted because of this as "terrorists".In all cases, these are actions that ought otherwise to be applauded by gun-rights supporters but are taken as evidence of violent or evil intentions because the people doing it are Muslim. And this depiction is almost entirely by right-wingers not by gun control liberals.
So, I'm with P6 on this.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
Thanks for showing your support S-Train. He doesn't deserve the nasty treatment some are giving him, not at all.First of all, S-train was shooting to kill. Any person in his/her right or left mind should.
Ya see, the human body is a wonderful thing. The systems that keep it functioning are truly incredible. In order to incapacitate someone you have to come real close to killing them. This is accomplished through hyrdaulic loss, nervous system damage, or damage to the brain. Sever trauma to bone may impede progress, but it'd take breaking enough bones to prevent locomotion.
Another thing to consider is that when you're afraid, & most who are faced with direct threats of violence are, your adrenelin starts flowing. This makes fine motor skills almost impossible, while gross motor skills are still usable. In short when people are charged by a lion, they don't have the physical capability to shoot the lion in the shoulder in such a way to merely disable it. They simply must aim at a larger target that will result in a more immediate cessation of the charge. Otherwise they will have deep empathy for what a can of 9-Lives feels like.
One last thing on this gruesome but fascinating subject: people & animals are capable of accomplishing many things even after a fatal wound has been delivered. Via shock & other defensive mechanisms of the body, severe & fatal damage to an organ, such as the heart will not prevent a determined person or animal from killing their killer. In fact many people & animals have died a few moments after killing the person or creature that killed them.
So if you're in enough fear for your safety that you feel its appropriate to use a weapon, it's to your benefit that you should not try to wound, but try to incapaciate, which is the same thing as trying to kill.
One thing I have noticed through too many years of fighting the battles i fight, is that the anti-gun movement is truly indiscriminant. They believe in total equality. So it is not merely a question of disarming minorities (although with 'saturday night special' & 'junk gun' laws you could make that case). What they seek is a completely disarmed population.
Conversely the pro-gun side, at least those who are informed on the issue, realize that to disarm one group is to disarm us all. So there too is a desire for equality.
& I can understand how you'd feel that some groups give too much importance to the second amendment, & that some gun control may be reasonable. But I do not feel that way. The main purpose of the second amendment was to protect the people's means of resisting a tyrannical government. It's a guarantee that there'll always be one more option before genocide. As such I feel that defense of our Right to Arms is just as important, if not moreso, than our other Rights. See, if they take away the 4th amendment you can use your second amendment rights to regain what was lost. But if they succeed in taking away the second amendment, then what recourse would we have other than hope that our new master will be merciful?
& I feel that as a matter of policy & prinicple, no law that prohibits the mere possession or ownership of a weapon is justified. Those kinds of law never solve the problems they seek to address, & make it worse, if only in the context that it's one step closer to a complete prohibition.
I realize this started off on another topic, but I do feel that an understanding of our Right to Arms & the necessity of preserving it is very important & if you'd be interested I'd be more than happy to show you why I feel so strongly about this.
My apologies for mis-spelling your name in the previous post.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
To add to the above, I would just like to re-iterate that I do support the right to bear arms and see the force of your argument about its importance. However, I do not see the right as being in as much danger as you see it as being in.The Fourth Amendment is in great danger. Not when it comes to ordinary people, but if you are suspected of certain types of crimes (and that's an ever-expanding list), then it goes right out the window. The first step in getting it back is through the First Amendment, speaking out and voicing our opposition in the hopes that the government will listen and change course. That hasn't worked, so the second step is to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. This includes passing local resolutions and ordinances, as well as working to pass bills in Congress like the True Patriot Act to repeal these new laws that are limiting our rights. We can also including assembling in political parties and seeking through the electoral process to get new officials into office, ones who will uphold our rights instead of restricting them. It is only if none of this works that anything more extreme would be necessary.
The fact that many Americans are armed has not stopped Bush and Ashcroft from what they are doing. They know that it is not a realistic threat that people would actually engage in armed resistance against the Patriot Act and other measures. What is realistic is that people rise up through speech and political action. However, if we can't even do that, we won't do anything else either.
This is why I place a low priority on gun rights activism and a high priority on general political activism.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
Al-Munaqabah,I agree that other amendments, such as the 4th, 5th, 1rst, 9th & 10th are being attacked. Some perhaps on the same level as the 2nd. But none are being attacked as severely as the 2nd.
While protesters are kept from being too close to Bush, books can be checked to see whom bought or rented them, States are being extorted into doing congresses bidding where they have no authority to meddle, & other horrible acts are occurring, the level of succesful attack against the 2nd amendment cannot be equaled.
In NYC only the affluent & politically connected can gain governmental permission to own a firearm in their own home. Same in Chicago. & there's a complete ban with no permits being issued to even those who would prostrate themselves at the local bureaucrat's office.
Bills are proposed with regularity that seek to ban certain types of firearms or prevent certain classes of people from owning arms. Such measures enjoy bi-partisan support & those who oppose such measures are labeled as extremists.
Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence, spoke of mankind's tendency to tolerate evil as long as they could before seeking change. Add to this our relatively peaceful system of settling grievances & disputes within the government & naturally people seek to use their 1rst amendment Rights to correct injustices. & this is as it should be.
But what happens when the 1rst amendment approach doesn't work? What happens when, despite laws to the contrary, the government sends its agents house to house, & most importantly to your house & your neighbors, to commit some injustice under pretense of law?
That is why the 2nd amendment is in place in the Constitution. It acts as a deterrent in that no government really wants to try to tyrannize a people that are as well armed as its military.
It is also a last chance to save ourselves from such a government. If it comes down to our government taking that last turn towards tyranny, then as an armed people we can stop the government, or at worst make them pay dearly for their transgressions.
So while the other amendments are important on their own merits, the second holds a special place in that in helps ensure the other amendments are not trampled upon too badly & offers a last chance for those who would not be slaves to a government.
It is on the whole better to seek the peaceful solutions while they are possible, but when they become impossible then we have the 2nd amendment.
As you pointed out, people do need to become more politically aware. But that does not necessarily mean that inaction now will mean inaction if it comes to the use of Arms.
A favorite strategy of governments & other organizations is incrementalism. I'm sure you're heard the analogy of the frog. Place one in boiling water & he'll jump right out, but place him in cool water & slowly turn up the heat & he'll be boiled before he knows what's happening. This is how we have come to the place we are at. Baby-step by baby-step the government has exerted authority over our Rights. They did it too slow for all but the extremely aware to notice, & when those people tried to point it out they were simply called extremists & ignored.
The Patriot Act is a good example. All by itself it's not that bad. It's been hyped up by the media a bit, but if you read it closely you'll see that it does not grant the government any new powers, rather it expands the scope of existing powers. But when coupled with laws passed years, even decades earlier it becomes bad. The powers were granted in various laws that sought to address the War on Drugs & the War on Organized Crime. They were slowly introduced as necessary measures to reduce what was & still is considered by most to be serious crime problems. But with the Patriot Act those can now be applied to Terrorism investigations. & as I'm sure you're aware the definition of terrorism is quite broad.
But that's the strategy: introduce a seemingly small measure for the public good & keep adding to it over the years until it's too late to reverse course. Most people will hear a few summaries saying the bill is good because it does this or that & later on they'll hear the law needs to be expanded. So most will either approve (cause not many want to believe their government is bad) or not care unless it affects them personally.
But step up the process too quickly & people will notice & hopefully take the appropriate action.
So a lack of awareness in the political process, or outrage at the results does not guarantee that once Americans wake up to a tyrannical government that no positive action will be taken to correct the situation. & even if that were the most probable scenario, I would at least like to know the option is there, even if most people are too afraid or ignorant to use it.
There are 3 aspects that are necessary for a free people to remain free: The Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist. Having 2 of the 3 can sometimes make up for the lack of the remaining one, but on this I'd prefer to hedge my bet.
Oh, 3 examples of Arms helping a free people or person defeat an unjust law when all other avenues were exhausted:
A man who keeps the local government from stealing his property through the threat of defending it with Arms
A man who seeks to remain free from an unjust sentencing through the threat of armed resistance
& a town who kept an election from being tampered with through the use of Arms. Also look here for more on the same incident
The first two examples are current. The first has happened & the second is happening now. The third example occurred in 1946. All of them happened in the U.S.
So the 2nd is & should be a last resort. But its importance shouldn't be ignored because of it's being a last chance measure. Think of it as the life jacket for the Bill of Rights. when everything is going fine people disregard it & think it's not needed. But when things go badly there's nothing that could replace it.
One final note: I agree that from a moral perspective wounding should be attempted before more drastic actions. Unfortunately the nature of human physiology makes this an unwise choice with just about any weapon if you're worried about your safety. So I'll tell you as I tell all my friends, if you feel someone is endangering your life & you can't remove yourself from that situation, then you must try to kill him/her before he/she kills you. The goal is merely incapacitation but as I've said before the only reliable way to do that is likely to kill them. But from a moral perspective, it is regretful to be in that place, but entirely permissible to do whatever you need to do to get out of it, even if this results in the death of one who instigated trouble & sought your harm.
Subject: Re: black man with a gun
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will check out the links that you mentioned. I don't think that the two of us actually disagree as much as it seems, we are just approaching the question in different ways and we choose to give emphasis to different things.