Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Ever-Popular Jim Crow

Leftie radio host David Sirota is frightened frightened frightened when he sees people carrying guns, so he does what lefties always do — roll out the racists, we'll have a barrel of fun! From today's Denver Post:
These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. Generating maximum media attention, the weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.
While the First Amendment doesn't ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear — a freedom that is now under siege. Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us — whether pro- or anti-health-reform — afraid to speak out.
"Like the noose in the Jim Crow South..." Liberals do love their racism references, don't they? I grew up in the Jim Crow South, and let me say that Mr. Sirota doesn't have a freakin' clue. The real truth is that in their 40-year effort to demonize guns, the antigun liberals succeeded beyond their wildest expectations in one area...themselves. They drank their own Kool-Aid. I give you Matt Lauer on the Today Show, physically recoiling from the mere mention of a granny's gat; or Mr. Sirota, stunned into speechlessness at the mere sight of a firearm.

Last time I read through it, I could find no reference in the Constitution to "freedom from fear." There's a reason for that omission, I suspect. "Fear" is not a physical thing like, say, "pizza." Rather, fear is an individual's response to an outside, or occasionally an internal, stimulus. The fear response is different for every person and indeed varies wildly for even the same stimulus. Let's roll out another barrel of racism references and see how it plays...many urban citizens, even liberals, respond with fear when they are walking down a long empty block between the walls of buildings and see a large group of young black men standing on the street corner dead ahead, laughing and horsing around. Never mind that it's an a'capella singing group getting ready for a competition...there's still that tensing of the gut, that first bead of perspiration rolling down the back, eyes cast at the ground...I am no threat...please please leave me alone!

So, does freedom from fear mean we should ban all gatherings of young black men?

Ludicrous (speaking of young black men), isn't it?

Your fear has nothing whatsoever to do with my rights, with me at all, in fact. Irrational fear can turn one's life into a living hell. Check out the TV series Monk, who's in desperate fear of germs, asymmetrical orderings of objects and milk. Even if large numbers of people fear milk, the issue is not with the milk.

Mr. Sirota, you need to deal with your fears, and the best way to deal with their is through education. We fear what we don't know or understand. The same applies to the phrase "threatened," as in, I feel threatened with I see a person with a gun. Again, the issue is your response, not my gun.

And lay off the Jim Crow references, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


Anonymous said...

Well said.

nj_larry said...

The travel guru Arthur Frommer also freaked out over the Phoenix episode. In his case he can have a huge economic impact on travel to Arizona and the Phoenix mayor gave him a direct telephone call yesterday. David Codrea wrote up the incident here...

Frommer has a syndicated radio show on Sundays noon to 2pm EST. Wouldn't it be great if everyone called HIM and straightened him out politely...(the callin number is on his link below)

Anonymous said...

I have emailed,commented, and posted on my own blog why folks need guns at politcal rallies.

Massacre of Camilla Georgia 1868.

Democrats declared it a "public gathering" which Georgia still has, and the democrats killed 75 blacks and republics.

You want to know why a black man or any man needs a gun at a political rally - there you go.

Dan Hood said...

The pen is Mightier than the sword. That scares the hell out of me.

Tom said...

The guy (since we're going on scary things emotional gut response instead of logic) should be locked up as a pedophile.

not only showed off their firearms at Obama's Arizona speech, but broadcast a YouTube video threatening to "forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority."

Deacons for Defense anyone?

Gun control advocates counter that the Constitution doesn't give anyone the inalienable right....

Well, at least they finally managed to get THAT through their thick skulls. It existed BEFORE the constitution and was put there to once and for all make sure the .gov was aware of that.

I swear to God reading idiotic childish ignorant drivel like what the guy spews needs to be banned under Obomber care to keep the price blood pressure meds down.

Anonymous said...

Last time I read through it, I could find no reference in the Constitution to "freedom from fear." There's a reason for that omission, I suspect.--MB

"Freedom" is the power of independent action.

The Declaration of Independence, which informs both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, states that our reason for rebellion against the English crown was to establish a free and independent nation.

Taking independent action is alarming to statists, who wish at all costs to be free from fear of political rebellion. To ensure their fears are mollified, we must surrender our political liberties, especially our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

To surrender our liberties is to make void the Declaration of Independence. That is why there is no reference in the Constitution to "freedom from fear."

I hate to labor the obvious, but that witless journalist just doesn't get the point.


Indrid Cold said...

What is interesting is that the original column is titled "Freedom from Fear," but in the Seattle Times, it bears the rubric "2nd Amendment Trumps 1st Amendment."

I happened to see this in a copy of the paper in the kitchen at work. I took out a pen and annotated below the column, "No fundamental right enumerated in the Constitution takes precedent over any other such right--they are all unalienable and coequal. In fact the 1st and 2nd help to guarantee each other." I figured the libs at work needed a little context.

What is a riot in this column is this quote: "Over two centuries, we have taken this tradition seriously, enacting statutes reinforcing freedoms of speech, creating the secret ballot, and outlawing harassment at Election-Day polling stations." Yes, a secret ballot unless you're a union member; and outlawing harassment unless the Black Panthers are doing the harassing. So redact that quote to read, "we leftists have taken this tradition seriously only when it suits us."

Indrid Cold said...

Addendum: "we [statists] have taken this tradition seriously, enacting statutes reinforcing freedoms of speech..." except for talk radio... (etc.)