Star Parker - Preserve Gun Rights - Save Black Lives

This past Friday [2-15-2013] my organization, CURE, sponsored a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, to bring attention to the importance of rigorously defending the right of all Americans, guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, to own a gun.

Our event provided a forum for black leaders from the world of politics and public policy in Washington, from the business community, from academia, and from the clergy to express their deep concern about efforts currently underway to limit our God-given and constitutional individual right of self-defense.

Why would an organization like CURE, whose mission focuses on the relevance of American values of faith and freedom to minorities, be so concerned about guns?

Because, as conservative black Americans, we know that the soul of America is kept alive with the free flow of the oxygen of freedom. And we know that when that flow is interrupted in any way, the group that suffers first and most are blacks.

New gun control initiatives coming from our President and from Democrats in congress to respond to a highly publicized tragedy by wanting to expand the power of government and limit the freedom of citizens comes as no surprise.

There is no problem facing America today that liberals do not believe should be solved by more government and less freedom. And liberals are consistent and predictable in their indifference to facts and experience that show whenever they do succeed in growing government and limiting freedom, they make matters worse, not better.

A substantial body of research already shows that gun controls empower criminals and weaken law-abiding citizens.

As John Lott, former chief economist of the US Sentencing Commission, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which three or more people have been killed since at least 1950 have occurred in a place where people are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”

Regarding black reality, blacks are the least armed, least protected and defended, and the most assaulted citizens in our country.

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 42 percent of whites and 16 percent of blacks say that they have a pistol or rifle at home.

And, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for the period 1980 to 2008, “Blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and eight times more likely to commit a homicide.”

Law abiding black citizens live under siege in crime ridden urban centers. Somehow they are supposed to buy the logic that giving more power to those in law enforcement already charged with maintaining order but don’t, while stripping down the freedoms of those that do obey the law, will make them better off?

In a Pew Research Center survey in 2009, 46 percent of whites compared to 24 percent of blacks said they have a “great deal” of confidence in the local police to enforce the law.

Can anyone whom God has blessed with a brain actually think that universal background checks will keep guns out of the hands of gang thugs? Or that these same checks, in which some past legal infraction might nullify a gun application, will not result in even fewer urban law abiding blacks obtaining a weapon for protection?

Perhaps even worse than another make-pretend big government “answer” that will not only not solve a problem, but will make it worse, gun control initiatives mask over the issues that really need attention.

A culture that devalues personal responsibility, that fosters government dependence, that trashes traditional understanding of sex, marriage, and family, and that bans these traditional values from our public schools and our public life.

Americans of all backgrounds must fight yet another misguided liberal attempt to undermine our personal freedom and sap the vitality of our nation.

Star Parker

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves and how important the 2nd Amendment is to ALL Americans.

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Obama and Gun Control

Difficulty in getting change in our country is an ongoing source of frustration. Particularly when we have huge problems facing us as we do today.

But the founders knew what they were doing setting up the checks and balances of our constitutional republic. The delicate arrangement we call freedom should never submit with ease to a charismatic demagogue or to an emotion filled crisis.

The current push for gun control is case and point. It is at a time like this that we should be grateful that changing our laws is hard to do.

Every normal and decent American wants to live in a country where we will never again see life lost as result of a weapon held and fired by some deranged individual.

If we knew how to prevent it from ever happening again, we all would sign off in a minute.

But we don’t know. And that is the point.

Ironically, President Obama acknowledges that we don’t know what causes the irrational violent incidents we have witnessed. It is the reason one part of the proposal he has put forth is to provide funding to the Centers for Disease Control to study the problem.

Yet, despite acknowledging lack of understanding about what drives gun violence, the president and Senator Dianne Feinstein do not hesitate to offer what they claim is a solution. They propose further controls on gun ownership that are deeply problematic in their intrusion on our freedoms and right to bear arms, guaranteed under the second amendment of our constitution.

Why are the president and Senator Feinstein so ready to compromise basic American freedoms with gun control measures, that already have a dubious record of success, to solve a problem that President Obama acknowledges we don’t understand?

To the president’s credit, in his remarks introducing his gun control initiative, he acknowledges that there may be cultural reasons that contribute to this sick, violent behavior.

But he defines the cultural parameters of what he chooses to look at in such narrow terms that you have to question his seriousness or sincerity.

The president said, “Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.”

But why limit this discussion to video games?

Has the president walked by a local movie theater complex recently to see what is playing? How about the local fare on television? Or what about the content of rap music?

Can it possibly be that the disproportionate support that the Democratic Party gets from the entertainment industry - major sources of gratuitous violent media – gets them a pass from today’s discussion?

President Obama outraised Mitt Romney five to one from the movie/TV/music industry.

This business was in the top ten sources of business funding for Senator Feinstein’s re-election in 2012, with election funding sources showing these entertainment businesses didn’t provide a dime to her Republican opponent.

What about other major themes in American culture today that contribute to a sense of meaningless and lack of respect for the sacredness of life?

Of course, I am talking about our indifference to the lives of unborn children, who are murdered in our country with impunity. Somehow those who want to intrude on gun ownership can live with the violence perpetrated on the unborn and have little interest in seeing its implications on violence in other areas of our society.

Another part of this discussion is about the mentally ill. Can President Obama or Senator Feinstein give us a good definition of mental illness and seriously tell us how this can be used to control gun ownership?

We have a serious problem on our hands, which demands serious discussion.

This discussion is not taking place and the gun control initiatives that have been put forward do not begin to justify the compromise of our basic freedoms, which they would require.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Can You Imagine King George III Telling Our Nation’s Founders They Couldn’t Have Muskets?

Don’t you love how the Left and their step-n-fetch media mavens are trying to make law-abiding gun owners the bad guys? You don’t? Yeah, me neither.

From Hollywood’s heavily armed guarded elite to the radical, anti-gun commie rag Journal News, peaceful and upright average Joes are being isolated and concentrated on as the bane of America’s existence just because we righteously and lawfully keep and bear arms.

Hollywood has even cobbled together a little tsk-tsk black and white video demanding our government do something about gun violence. That would be the very gun violence they have glamorized on the big screen for the last few decades. Hello.

I believe the total head count of the people slaughtered on film from all the participants from the “Demand a Plan” anti-gun clip comes out to a whopping 100,000 on screen murders.

Yes, Hollywood, please lecture us about gun violence wrecking our culture. Life imitates art, morons, and your films probably spawned half of the killers’ bloody dreams for the last two decades. Lecture us? Please. Physician, heal thyself.

Check it out: When upright, law-abiding Americans want your opinion on guns we’ll give it to you, Hollyweird. Now, go back to Spago and suck on some edamame beans, you duplicitous little dandies.

Oh, and by the way, if you truly want to stem the tide of violent deaths, you should have made a video about the danger of hammers and clubs, as the FBI reports they kill more people every year than rifles do. Dorks.

You know what else is funny? The multitudinous politicians and pundits—mostly progressives—telling us what type of guns we should and should not own. “Oh, we shouldn’t have semi-automatic weapons with thumb holes and extended mags,” they say. “You should only have hunting guns,” they opine.

First off, if you think for a second that Leftists are cool with hunting and Americans owning any type of firearms then you are definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

These tree-humpers would have banned hunting and hunting guns yesterday if they had the wherewithal to do it. Secondly, the right to keep and bear arms was never about putting the bam to Bambi; it was always about the right to self-defense, especially against oppressive governments. Ah-hem.

Therefore, when a progressive tells you what kind of gun you should and shouldn’t own, you should yawn and go out and buy what they just said you shouldn’t have, like millions of other Americans have.

Finally, can you imagine if King George told our original rebels that they shouldn’t own a musket? The Brown Bess, the Charleville and the Kentucky long rifle were the military/police weapons of the day, ladies and gents. “Yes, by George, you colonists shouldn’t have a musket. Who needs a musket? You can hunt with a bow and arrow or a slingshot or a snare. No one needs a dangerous musket. We have the muskets, and we’ll protect you … maybe.”

Our founding rebels with a cause would have said (did say), “Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, Georgie Boy. We’ll leave our self-defense to ourselves. Now bugger off, you snaggle toothed oppressor, and don’t make me use this.”

Oh, one last thing: Here’s a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued:

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.
• You won’t see this data on the U.S. evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note, Americans.

Check out our latest video: The State is My Shepherd, I Shall Not Want.

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Academic Malpractice Part 818

Author’s Note: This is the 818th column I have written since September of 2003. If you are tired of hearing about liberal hypocrisy in academia, please do not read this latest offering. If you like guns, however, keep reading.

Dear Professor Hoplophobe (pseudonym):

First I would like to thank you for your willingness to discuss Second Amendment issues despite our deep disagreement about the scope and applicability of this important constitutional right. The first time we broached the issue, the tenor of our discussion was less than civil. Since then, you have agreed to continue our dialogue and I believe we would both agree that it has been constructive. I enjoy the opportunity to speak with professors from other departments, especially those with different educational and employment backgrounds. I also enjoy the opportunity to challenge political science professors because, in my view, the field focuses too much on the “political” and too little on the “science.”

I would like to start by sharing my concerns about a remark you made in our last conversation. You indicated that in one of your classes there was a vigorous discussion of concealed weapons permits. You summarized the discussion as follows: “We didn’t really get anywhere. I will never change my mind on the issue and I will never change theirs either.”

This statement of yours is problematic for at least three reasons. I dissect each one below:

1. You refuse to consider the evidence of the side you seek to influence. During our first discussion of this issue you asked what evidence I had to support my contention that concealed weapons permits reduce violent crime. I told you there were fifteen refereed scholarly publications supporting my position. I offered to share them with you but you declined. A couple of years later we discussed the issue again. By then, a sixteenth refereed scholarly publication came out supporting my position. I brought this to your attention but to no avail. You expressed no interest in examining the evidence. Today you continue to ignore it while clinging to the position that concealed weapons permits increase violence. This position of yours is not supported by a single refereed publication. I believe it is time for you to either
   1. review the evidence or
   2. stop referring to yourself as a “social scientist.”
   The terms “advocate” or “visionary” are more appropriate for those who deem all contrary evidence to be irrelevant.


2. You base your own opinions entirely on ideology. On more than one occasion you have said “I just don’t like guns.” On another occasion, you added that a world with guns was “just not the kind of world you want to live in.” Well, that is the kind of world you live in. There are guns. And when law-abiding people are allowed to carry them crime goes down. But you do not like the fact that we live in a world where guns are required to maintain civility. You think we should be able to “talk out” our differences. This is because you think people are good and that conflict is a function of misunderstanding or miscommunication. You so cling to this vision that you admit that you “will never change (your) mind on the issue.”
   
   What you fail to understand is that by bitterly clinging to your gun-less religion – and it is a religion - you actually confirm my worldview. You prove that people are so selfish that they will jeopardize the public good just to avoid admitting they are wrong. You can call it arrogance. You can call it pride. You can call it hypocrisy. But I just prefer to call it selfishness. It is confirmation that people are not fundamentally more concerned with others than with themselves. That is precisely why we must have guns. It all goes back to the fallen nature of man.


3. You continue to teach the ideas that are contradicted by the evidence you ignore for ideological reasons. You are entitled to your views. But you also have an obligation to your students. They pay a lot of money to sit in your classes. They are also living out the most vulnerable period of their lives. The data consistently show that people between the ages of 12 and 25 are far more likely to experience violent crime than those below 12 or those over 25. So they need accurate information to make it in this “society,” which you concede is a dangerous place. They need more than your vision of what the world could be or should be. They need to navigate the world as it is. So, please, hear my plea: when a female student of yours asks whether getting her concealed weapons permit will decrease her chances of being raped just tell her what the published evidence says. But telling her the truth implies that at some point you will take an interest in learning what the published evidence says.

When willfully blind professors mislead students about the efficacy of certain policy initiatives, they do more than just a disservice to “society.” They often jeopardize the well-being of the students under their care. This is nothing short of professional malpractice. It should be grounds for the revocation of tenure.

Respectfully,

Mike S. Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - My New Second Amendment Diversity Plan

I’m getting sick and tired of all the violence. Every few months, the campus community gets another email blast from the police saying that a gunman is loose on the UNCW campus. For those who don’t know, UNCW stands for The University of North Carolina at We-are-sitting-ducks-because-only-criminals-carry-guns-on-campus. Our ban on guns has turned the campus into safe haven for armed robbers. It has also increased the incidence of violent crime around the perimeter of our campus. The explanation for the trend is purely common sense. And my solution is pure genius, largely because it is born of my boundless humility.

For years, North Carolina has had a law that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons as long as two major conditions are met. First, the citizen must pass a rigorous criminal background check. Second, the citizen must pass a rigorous mental health background check. But, there is one problem with the law, which takes the form of an exception: those licensed, sane non-criminals are prevented from carrying concealed weapons on any of our state university campuses.

The results are predictable here in the drug-infested town of Wilmington, North Carolina: First, criminals commit crimes like armed robbery, rape, and homicide near the campus (because that is where all the young people live). Second, they flee to campus right after committing the crime (because our campus is the largest gun-free zone in the entire county).

The crime problem on our campus is, of course, exacerbated by our university’s affirmative action policy. Under our policy, we grant preferential treatment to minority applicants. But we only grant that preferential treatment to members of minority groups that are, on average, less educated and poorer than whites (e.g., blacks and Hispanics). The problem is that those groups that are less educated and poorer also exhibit higher criminal involvement than whites.

Because universities have become so immersed in identity politics, they refuse to pay attention to other minority groups that do not lobby specifically for special treatment (e.g., Asians). Because Asians generally prefer to get by on their own merits, rather than trying to climb a racial victim latter weighed down by blacks and Hispanics, they are excluded from our preferential treatment programs. This is unfortunate because Asians are the only minority group with consistently lower criminal involvement than whites.

Given that our gun policies and our affirmative action policies are both contributing to the campus crime problem, I am proposing a new crime control program that is based on a modification of both of those failed policies. My plan is simple and bold, so much so that I present it in big, bold letters: Stop offering scholarships to minorities per se and instead offer scholarships to minorities with concealed weapons permits.

The advantages to my program are pretty obvious to conservatives. But liberals require slow and careful explanations of even the simplest of ideas. The next few paragraphs are for them:

Reduced Crime – In order for a crime to take place, a motivated offender must encounter a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian. People who carry concealed weapons are not suitable targets for violent crime. But they are capable guardians of others. So you do not even have to carry a concealed weapon in order to benefit from my new gun diversity policy.

Reduced need for centers like the African American Center and El Centro Hispano – Put simply, their status as armed citizens would make them feel at ease and comfortable. Therefore, we would not need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on centers designed to make them feel comfortable. It would also teach them self-reliance, rather than the need to rely on government offices run by white liberals. Need a white man’s help? No way, Jose! Wiggers please!

Increased average age of the student population – Some have suggested that my plan will not work because concealed weapons permits can only be obtained by those at least 21 years of age – while people often enroll in college at 18 or younger. I don’t see that as a problem. Let’s increase the age of eligibility for all scholarships. That way we can worry less about teenagers squandering their opportunities because they lack the maturity to appreciate them. If they don’t want to wait until 21 for their handout that’s tough. It’s a handout. We’ll give it to you when we’re darned good and ready. If you don’t like it, hop on a leaky boat and paddle your way to Cuba where there is boundless freedom and decent health care. (Sarcasm = off).

Reduced racial stereotyping – Perhaps the best part of my plan is that it reduces racial stereotypes. Because we a) specifically recruit blacks and Hispanics with concealed carry permits, and b) those with concealed carry permits have clean criminal backgrounds, we will c) see a reduction in the negative stereotyping of blacks and Hispanics as criminals (Si how this works, amigos?).

My plan makes so much sense that the UNCW administration will probably implement it immediately. I’m just kidding. Instead, they will hold a meeting of all the top diversity officials and then condemn my suggestions as racist – and, while they are at it, probably sexist and homophobic. They will all hold hands and re-affirm their commitment to diversity, inclusion, and tolerance while singing a few stanzas of We Shall Overcome. But their voices shall not overcome the sound of gunfire that echoes in the distance.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.