Yellow journalism everywhere

H/T to Firehand for this “article” which says:

Well, this should surprise exactly no one. Not even a little. Ever since the NRA created the “grassroots” movement to shove “open carry” laws down America’s throat, white men have been parading their penis extensions to shopping malls and restaurants to bully and terrorize people. Oh wait, I meant “show their patriotism.” No, hold on, I actually did mean “bully and terrorize.”

Meanwhile, gun control advocates have been pointing out that the second black men started to do the same, white conservatives would go into full panic mode. And just as predicted, when the New Black Panther Party did just that, the right wing started to hyperventilate

But this is nothing new. Conservatives love love LOVE the Second Amendment right up until the point where black people start exercising it. Hell, the NRA and even Saint Ronnie were so terrified of black men with guns that they crafted and passed laws in the 60’s that explicitly prohibited the kind of open carry that ammosexuals are currently using to terrorize their neighbors.

They made reference to, but didn’t provide the link, to this “article” which has this to say:

Ah, finally. A gun club President Barack Obama can support.

The New Black Panther Party has been suspiciously silent since their unfortunate part in the Ferguson debacle. Thankfully, for those of you following the zany antics of Eric Holder’s favorite group of  militants, they’ve popped up again.

We accept all oppressed people of color with weapons,” Darren X told Vice. “The complete agenda involves going into our communities and educating our people on federal, state and local gun laws. We want to stop fratricide, genocide — all the ‘cides.”

Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect.

It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention.

Now I understand why they didn’t provide the link. The author of the first article greatly exaggerates what the second article says. I didn’t see any “panic” or “hyperventilating” in the second article. Yes, there was some hyperbola. Both articles engaged in sensationalism worthy of second page placement in the National Enquirer. There was a tantalizing bit of truth in each and the rest was forgettable.

If the anti-gun author had wanted to show gun rights people were against blacks keeping and bearing arms then they should have quoted a NRA, SAF, GOA, or JPFO or even a gun blog source saying something to that effect. They didn’t because they don’t exist.

They claim in the 1960s the NRA was against blacks bearing arms. I don’t know the extent of their consent for the California anti-carry laws at the time but there was a NRA revolution in the mid-1970s that purged a lot of those type of people. And apparently the author didn’t know (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could be because it didn’t fit their agenda) about the black civil rights groups that formed NRA gun clubs so they could get training and cheap CMP guns for defense against the Klan. See Negros with Guns and The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement for more information along those lines.

And, of course, the anti-gun author apparently recognized,essentially before they started, their straw man attack they would have to invoke Markley’s Law. It’s the best they can come up with so they led with their “strongest” point.

14 thoughts on “Yellow journalism everywhere

  1. A bunch of points come to mind.
    1. MLK was an NRA member.
    2. Armed self defense was a key part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
    3. The issue with the Black Panthers some years ago was not that they were armed, but that they practiced voter intimidation and that the Holder justice department did nothing about it.
    4. The GCA of 1968 was a creation of liberal democrats, apparently in response to the riots of that year, and apparently directly copied from analogous Nazi laws.
    5. The previous “devil gun” invented by gun haters before they invented the “assault rifle” was the Saturday Night Special — an overtly racist term intended to stigmatize affordable guns. This is a modern version of 19th century laws that allowed gun possession, so long as the gun was expensive enough — thereby denying poor people generally and poor black specifically the right to self defense.
    6. Along the same lines, proposals for confiscatory taxes on ammo (for example the one from St. Teddy Kennedy) aim to disarm the poor, while not bothering rich armed liberals.

    • Not to mention the Mary Issue Regimes. Which were especially onerous in “urban” areas.

      Such as Boston versus rural Mass, San Fran versus rural Cali, or NYC versus Upstate NY.

      Note that those laws made sure that only “certian” people had good cause to get a pistol permit.

      • Indeed. For example, in NYC, where the publisher of the NY Times gets one. Or LA, where no one did, until one of the members of the request denial committee wanted his own, so he got it from the Beverly Hills chief (which was a different town and didn’t use that committee). Fortunately, Neal Schulman caught that one and publicly shamed the guy.

  2. “…Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry…”

    When did the law change?

    Imbeciles relying on morons to peddle outrage.

    • Indeed, Texas allows open carry of long arms and has shall-issue, licensed concealed carry of handguns these days. The current push is to allow CHL carry on college campuses and other places that were denied in the past.

      And open carry is about 100% likely to pass the next legislature.

      Go Texas!

      • I wonder how many of those killed/arrested in Waco were legal gun toters? I’m waiting for the media to ask this question….

          • What’s your point with this ubu? Both of the men in the Florida story had felony-free backgrounds. That means the current screeching for UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!11!!!!1!!! would have still allowed these two a permit. Is it who they choose to associate with? If you choose to limit rights based on that fact, you are now violating another Constitutional right (and one that clearly violates Joe’s Jews in the Attic test).
            “In both their arrest reports, the arresting officer noted that ‘a concealed weapons permit does not authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption [on] the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.'” So they were found to be violating the law and were treated accordingly. Are you proposing we establish a Pre-Crime Division now? I just bet you’d love to be in charge of that, wouldn’t you?

          • Yes. The number of people with carry permits that commit crimes is not exactly equal to zero. It is, however, VERY close to zero. Sufficiently close for the conclusion that CC permit holders are (a) vastly more law abiding than the population at large, and in fact (b) vastly more law abiding than law enforcement officers.
            This has been well documented by analysis of state reports on CC permit revocations.

        • None, since members of criminal gangs are legally prohibited from carrying handguns in Texas.

          It never ceases to amuse me how you cannot be bothered to answer your own questions.

          • Hasn’t this already been through the court system? You can’t ban something from gang members without listing those gang members by name. If the police could say “No Crips can carry guns” suddenly everyone they pick up with a gun would be a Crip! This is how civil liberties get violated.

      • We will hopefully get constitutional carry in Texas sooner or later. I hope.

  3. Wait… so selective bans on carry and May Issue schemes are racist of a Republican signs them, but common sense if a Democrat signs them?

    Or is it okay to keep black people from owning and bearing guns if all other races are brougth in too?

    And funny that the people saying that “urban” alreas need more gun laws than the “rural” areas aren’t the gun rights folk.

    Heck, just look at North Carolina where a Jim Crow era gun permit scheme designed to keep minorities from getting guns is trying to be repealed. Just look at all the people angrily fighting it’s repeal…

    Oh wait, it’s the gun control people who are aghast at it.

    Huh.

  4. I followed this story very closely; it happened to be in the Dallas neighborhood that is measured in ‘minutes from my house” terms. Not right next door but close enough that I talked to many people in the areas about the NBP’s Open Carry march.

    Young folks who didn’t realize that Open Carry of pistols wasn’t legal — they were surprised to know that and unafraid that the NBP were Openly Carrying.
    I talked to the Soccer Mom and Band Camp Dads — they were supportive of the way the NBP did the protest march. some of this same people had expressed anger toward Open Carry Texas and Open Carry Tarrant County for some of their actions.
    I even talked to some of the elderly — let’s be polite and call them the ‘old guard’ members of the gun clubs. The club members who started the club and grew it into a great organization but want to keep it just a place for the codgers to sight in their deer rifles and shoot some skeet/trap. — yeah those guys. They didn’t care about who was carrying; just didn’t like anyone Open Carrying. Felt, like OCT, that the NBP would cause our rights to be stripped away.

    The media sites were filled with comments supportive of the walk, the few haters were quickly shouted down by a huge majority of people — all races and creeds.

    No where was there panic or hyperventilating — just didn’t happen. Despite the media trying to drum it up.

    Bob S.

Comments are closed.