Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
Picture, Oleg Volk
JPFO has long worked to expose the racist motivation behind the history of "gun control" in America, the horrid evil of which is starkly and succinctly summarized in the words "No Guns for Negroes," which is in turn the title of a JPFO educational DVD. As AWR Hawkins noted in Breitbart Saturday, multi-billionaire, former New York City Mayor, and perennial enemy of gun rights (and a great many other personal liberties) Michael Bloomberg informed an audience in Aspen, Colorado last Friday of just how strongly he believes in that noxious position:
According to the Aspen Times, Bloomberg justifies his race-based forcible citizen disarmament policies on the grounds that "95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25," and therefore, "Cities need to get guns out of this group's hands and keep them alive." OK--so technically, he wants people disarmed on the basis of not only race, but of gender and age, as well. But that's OK, because it's for their own good.
How cities would do this is a bit of a mystery. Federal law permits the purchase of firearms from federally licensed dealers at the age of 18 (21 for handguns), regardless of the race and gender of the prospective buyer. Then of course there's the inconvenient fact that much of this nation's ability to defend itself against hostile foreign powers relies on young, armed males, many of whom are not white, serving in our military forces. Should the military reject all prospective African-American and Hispanic recruits who are under the age of 26?
Image, Oleg Volk
JPFO contributor David Codrea observed yesterday that Bloomberg, in not bothering to even try to hide his agenda of race-based disarmament, has, ironically, given gun rights advocates a powerful weapon. Bloomberg depends upon the support of those who arrogantly claim the title of "progressive" (just don't inquire too closely into where they would have us "progress" to), who in turn enjoy anointing themselves as "defenders of minorities." As gun rights advocates, we must make the cognitive dissonance of that association impossible to ignore.
This, by the way, is hardly a new position for Bloomberg, although this might be the most baldly he has articulated it. As NYC's mayor, Bloomberg presided over the NYPD's explosive expansion of "stop-and-frisk" policies, whereby the Fourth Amendment rights of the people were contingent on them not being young, male, and African-American or Hispanic.
Understandable outrage over this heinous policy was not limited to gun rights advocates. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert--a vocal critic of the NRA, and gun rights in general, wrote a scathing, blistering piece about the blatant racism (and utter futility) of the "stop-and-frisk" policy, appropriately titled "The Shame of New York." In it, he noted that the staggering 575,000 "stop-and-frisks" committed by the NYPD in 2009 (which swelled to an incredible 800,000 by 2011) turned up illegally carried firearms about 0.15% of the time. That's, if one does the math, about 667 Fourth Amendment right violations for every "illegal" gun. 91% of those violated (or about 607 for every illegally carried firearm) were not white (and overwhelmingly African-American or Hispanic).
Incredibly, Bloomberg then argued that his policy was not racially discriminatory enough, with whites stopped too frequently, and minorities (who make up the vast majority of his "stop-and-frisk" targets) stopped too rarely:
And he is still proud of his stop-and-frisk jihad. In his Aspen speech, he reminisced about speaking at a Baptist church in Harlem, back when he was Mayor. In introducing him to the congregation, the minister told them that "if every one of you stopped and frisked your kid before they went out at night, the mayor wouldn't have to do it."
Can the disease of nanny-statism get any more virulent than is demonstrated by a government official being praised for violating citizens' rights, in order to cover for the supposed deficiencies of the violated citizens' parents?
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.