Whites and Guns

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 24, 2012

The media have discovered the real source of mass violence: white people.

The media has discovered the real enemy behind mass shootings in America: white people.

Americans used to believe firearms were an integral part of our identity, a symbol of our self-reliance and the conquest of a continent. “Progressives” are adopting a mirror image of these ideas, but are using them to justify disarming white Americans.

Hugo Schwyzer, who blogs for the feminist intellectual journal/celebrity gossip magazine Jezebel, blames mass shootings on white men frustrated by multiculturalism. Katie J.M. Baker, who worries about the crisis of racist sorority girls, racist theme parties, and rape epidemics by white people in Montanasniffed that “Americans have fetishized the power and agency guns provide ever since the Revolutionary War” but dismisses this heritage as “macho daydreams.” Michael Moore provided the most detailed analysis, characterizing white Americas as “fearful” of the minorities they are oppressing, and suggesting that they own guns only because of “racism.” But how does he account for the latest celebrity YouTube video condemning Americans and their guns that begins with Jamie Foxx, star of Django Unchained, who was last seen bragging that he gets to “kill all the white people” in his latest movie?

Of course, the truth is that the shocking violence in Newton, Connecticut, or Aurora, Colorado, conceals the larger reality of rampant gun crime in cities such as Chicago, where more than 270 school-age children have been killed in the past three years. In addition to astonishing levels of black-on-black violence, there is a great deal of black-on-white violence, especially gun crime.

However, Michael Moore and his ilk believe that whites are irrationally fearful of oppressed non-whites. The most spectacular recent example of irrational fear was George Zimmerman, a “white Hispanic” now awaiting trial for the crime of defending himself and actually doing his job as a neighborhood watch volunteer, rather than ignoring black crime.

Blacks, as always, practice an almost refreshingly straightforward tribalism. Among the leading voices for disarmament is the Congressional Black Caucus. It seized on the killing of Trayvon Martin to introduce a repeal of all “Stand Your Ground” laws that allow Americans to defend themselves against violence without first retreating. After the Newtown shooting, the group supported the message of one of its members, Yvette Clarke, who badly claimed that “we have the authority” to ban “assault weapons” and certain kinds of magazines, and to control private sales of guns.

Oddly, the group’s alleged worries about unregistered firearms did not extend to the “Fast and Furious” scandal under Eric Holder, in which untracked assault rifles were shipped to Mexico and used in violent crimes, including the murder of white Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The Congressional Black Caucus walked out during a vote to hold black Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, and even honored him at a gala as a “role model for the African-American community.”

The appears to be a long-term agenda: Disarm white people and make them dependent for  security on a government that despises them. Tom Scocca, writing at Slate, makes it explicit, saying that the real danger after Hurricane Katrina was not the collapse of civil order or the disintegration of the black police force, but bands of “racist civilians.”

We know where this kind of anti-white gun control leads. The South African Firearms Control Act mandates that gun ownership be allowed only after an applicant passes a written test and a criminal background check, explains his “need” for the weapon, has adequate safekeeping facilities, and takes a shooting test. Gun owners must re-register periodically.

Not surprisingly, the South African government cannot keep up with its own administrative requirements. Applicants have been waiting for as long as five years to own firearms legally. The system is a model of what Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny,” as the government mysteriously loses tens of thousands of its own firearms even as it denies permits to law abiding citizens. If a white citizen does use a firearm to defend his life against a black, he is often punished.

The result is predictable. Murders of white South African farmers have become so common that  even “Genocide Watch” says the South African government is in the beginning stages of a drive for extermination. The government is not worried; President Jacob Zuma recently sang “Shoot the Boer” at an African National Congress celebration.

White South Africans who could not afford private security companies used to rely on “commandos” of mobile defense teams that could respond quickly to reports of violence. Of course, in 2003, the South African government forcibly disbanded them because they were supposedly linked to apartheid. Now, as Genocide Watch pointed out after an exhaustive investigation in July 2012, “Deliberate inaction of the South African Government has weakened rural security structures, facilitating Afrikaner farm murders, in order to terrorize white farmers into vacating their farms.”

Could it happen here? Since President Obama’s re-election, the media has increasingly removed the mask, engaging in multicultural triumphalism. Most of the world greets Boer genocide  with silence or even approval, so we cannot expect anyone else to defend us. The current debate over gun control isn’t about public safety, or mental illness, or the Constitution. It’s about whether whites have the right to defend themselves.

Only we can be us and only we can defend ourselves.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Gregory Hood
Mr. Hood has been active in conservative youth movements in the US.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/ Reuben H

    A good article. But Mr. Hood needs to do a better job proofreading:

    “The appears to be a long-term agenda: Disarm white people and made them
    dependent for security on a government that despises them.”

    http://www.jewamongyou.wordpress.com

    • Svigor

      Anarcho-tyranny.

    • Johnny Clay

      Disarming white people to make them defenseless for when they get their revenge on us for 400 years of “oppression.”

      • WhiteFalcon1

        “Oppression”? LMAO…had they never been captured by their own and sold as slaves, they would have never known what even the simplest of freedoms really is and would be today, living in mud-huts and hunting with spears….if anything, slavery benefited any black descendant alive in America today…they wouldn’t even BE Americans were it not for slavery!

        • Pelayo

          More evidence of their stupidity is that in addition to their own enslaving them, Arab ( Muslim) slavers captured them and are still doing it today. And the Blacks strut around with names like Raheem, Muhammed, Shamir and lots of others that are simply made up in their crack clouded minds.

  • White Flight

    Also add the ambush of firefighters in Webster New York on Christmas Eve by a paroled white ex-convict who had previously brutally bludgeoned his grandmother with a hammer in 1980. Had this animal been put down for what he did to his grandmother those firefighters would have been alive today.

    • Tucker

      Under normal circumstances, I would congratulate White Flight on an excellent observation. However, we are not dealing with “normal” circumstances. We are also not dealing with sane, or rational, or honest opponents. What we are dealing with is a gang of ideological psychopaths. Such crazies will resort to any length necessary, in order to push and impose their anti-gun, anti-White, anti-freedom, totalitarian agenda down upon those of us who passionately disagree with them and who refuse to go along with their ideological poisons.

      These are more than likely black ops events, planned and orchestrated by leftist, Communist, totalitarian elements within the US Government. Possibly, as political analyst and web radio broadcaster Mike Harris recently surmised – carried out by the Israeli Mossad assassination / murder squads that Sharon boasted that he planned to station inside every Western nation. Harris appeared recently on either RT or Press TV and offered his suspicions on these kinds of gun-related tragedies, and initially, I was a little dubious about them. However, after noticing how rapidly the lobby’s disinformation specialists rushed forward to begin planting stories which posed some of the most incredible, ridiculous, and impossible to believe ‘counter’ conspiracy theories – clearly an effort to misdirect and shift the focus elsewhere – I am now beginning to wonder if Harris got a little closer to the truth than I had previously thought. At this point, its impossible to know what to believe. Except that the timing and convenience of these ‘shootings’ and how the ‘lone gunman’ theory is repeatedly pushed and how the gunman winds up ‘suicided’ – smell like a all-too-familiar and increasingly suspicious narrative.

      At any rate, the idea is to spread fear and panic among the masses of really clueless sheeples who are far too dumbed down, gullible, and stupid to understand the concept of ‘Game Theory Warfare’, which is the 5th generation warfare model that was hatched out of the evil brain of an Israeli theoretician . For those who are interested in learning more about this ‘Game Theory Warfare’ model, read the book by Jeff Gates, Guilt By Association. Gates goes into considerable detail explaining how this warfare model works and how Israel uses it to advance their various agendas. I should point out that this warfare model is not necessarily used only by the Israelis; it can be used by rogue elements within our government just as easily and with just as much effectiveness. In short:

      This model promotes the use of false flag acts of premeditated terrorism against specific nations or targets, and within this model, there exists a formula whereby those who commit these acts of terrorism can mathematically predict the most probable reactions to them. This allows the false flag orchestrators to cleverly advance their agenda. Gun control and disarming us – which has long been an obsession of a wide assortment of Israel loyalists and gun grabbing totalitarians like Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, Bloomberg, Sunstein, Levin, Clintons, Obama, Holder, etc.

      I mean, come on, people. Put your thinking caps on. We all know that the enemy left are completely devoid of any scruples and have zero integrity. This enemy is willing to lie, cheat, steal, play dirty, stab us in the back or kick us between our legs – whatever it takes to win, these Leftists have a long track record that proves they are capable anything. The left is not only evil, but they are also ruthless. They are ideological psychopaths.

      Facts: Obama and Holder smuggled the same weapons that they are now trying to ban into Mexico and made sure those weapons were placed into the hands of Mexican drug cartel assassins – because these two guys WANTED them to be used to kill innocent people. They wanted to make this happen, and to have those weapons conveniently left at the scene of the carnage – because they wanted to be able to trace them back to American gun store dealers – and then use a paper trail that they themselves had manufactured to justify banning the kinds of firearms that they are now trying to ban, following the Sandy Hook tragedy and now this NY fire fighter ‘shooting’ ambush. How difficult would it be to locate this 62 year old guy with a prior criminal record and “nominate” him to be a patsy, and to arrange to have him or his already dead body positioned on the scene? Or, as a friend of mine recently told me that in New Hampshire, a school bus full of little children was ‘fired upon’ – a random act of senseless violence, right? I don’t know if anyone was injured in this incident, but when I heard about it – the first question that crossed my mind was this:

      If you were part of a cabal of ideological psychopaths who were obsessed with trying to ban firearms and were hell-bent on disarming the American population – how hard would it be, if you had the power and rotten soul necessary to commit such evil, to arrange to have a series of black ops shooters to begin a nation wide campaign to pick out school buses driving down our nation’s,highways – and take pot-shots at them, and then to make sure you left lots of .223 shell casings around for the police to find? (Note: AR-15 rifles are usually .223 caliber)

      Can everyone grasp how easy this would be for a cabal of ideological psychopaths to create a nationwide panic and climate of fear, to set the stage for banning certain kinds of firearms that the left hates and doesn’t want to allow law-abiding Americans to own? Is there ANYONE in the AmRen reading community who doubts that these totalitarian, Cultural Marxist enemies of our race and of our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights would not be capable of this kind of evil?

      Remember: Fast and furious Obama-Holder gun smuggling has lead to the deaths of close to 40,000 innocent people along our US-Mexican border, folks. That is the answer to how far these enemies are willing to go, in order to strip us (whites) of our most effective means of self-defense against (a) minority crime against Whites and (b) a tyrannical government which, as Mr. Hood correctly points out – is now run by a minority controlled government which despises them.

      Disarming White European Americans is a precursor to ethnic cleansing of White European Americans, folks. And, believe me – our genocide is the #1 goal of our Cultural Marxist enemies, as evidenced by the 66 plus million Whites who were murdered when the ancestors of these ideological psychopaths seized absolute power over Russia in 1917.

      • pcmustgo

        Yes, I am not one for conspiracy theories but it all does seem a little suspicious. ADAM LANZA HAD NO HUMAN CONTACT/”DID NOT EXIST” IN ANY PROVABLE WAY FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS, EXCEPT FOR CONTACT WITH HIS MOTHER, WHO IS DEAD NOW… His mother was one of those evil “preppers’ , survivalists and gun enthuisiasts,….

        The gun stores have been coming every day now, so either the mainstream media is just covering them more to build the narrative or it’s something more nefarious…

        Check out this CNN clip where the CNN people even admit “Adam Lanza did not exist for the past 3 years”… in a provable way, outside of his mother.

        Granted, he was a loner, but even loner’s have someone witness them existing… walking around, whatever….

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibRw4R8j35o

        • pcmustgo

          Lanza’s bedroom must have been one deep cave for him to literally not be seen by anyone for the past 3 years except his mother. Also, why didn’t his mother have him in therapy? If he was that mentally ill, any upper middle class parent would have the kid in therapy, seeing a shrink each week… But if no one’s seen him in 3 years, that means no therapist either.

          • David Ashton

            All very odd. A deus ex machina for Washington gun-banners. We had a nail-bomb atrocity against a “gay” pub in London just as politicians wanted to introduce new hate-crime legislation.

      • liberalsuck

        If any white person by now, or at least who visits this blog regularly, doesn’t suspect our governments and most nonwhites are evil and that they have it in for us….then they really don’t get it. if it’s not apparent to most white people by now that many nonwhites want us dead and that our governments are wanting to do away with our constitution, nothing ever will be.

        • Svigor

          To my mind, there’s a third way which avoids both conspiracy theories about gov’t black ops, and summary dismissals of same; just consider the possibility.

          I.e., join the washed masses by scoffing at the idea that the gov’t is running black ops so the bitter grabbers can take all the guns, but throw a bone to the conspiracists by entertaining the possibilities they raise.

          Because the simple fact is, though the conspiracy theories may sound far-fetched, a gov’t faction that had a desire for gun control and little in the way of scruples (hardly an implausible combination) could bring about their goal with the sort of black ops the conspiracists mention.

          Thus, if one’s goal is to preserve our American birthright of freedom and liberty, we must not allow mass shootings as a justification for gun control; it would be too easy for an unscrupulous gov’t faction to use such events to that purpose should we be vulnerable to the tactic. And putting such temptation before such an unscrupulous faction would be immoral; the resulting deaths would be at our feet.

          We should nip any such thinking in the bud by ruling out such events ex ante as a justification for gun control; it is the duty of moral men to refrain from putting such irresistible temptation before venal men. We must do it for the children, whose lives we will be saving.

          It’s the same sort of thinking as behind the ubiquitous “no negotiation with terrorists” policy.

  • Lou406

    Looks like the media has finally gotten their wish, a white male to use as the poster boy for gun violence.

  • Dr. Möbias

    These gun control freaks conflate fear with opposition. They love to say we whites are fearful in place of engaging our arguments, and in doing so attempt to pathologize us = Cultural Marxism 101.

    • Doppleganger

      Lots of whites are in fact fearful of what would happen if they didn’t have guns. You’re making it sound like fear is a complete non-factor, which is false.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        The media and our overlords only speak about fear in whites, i.e., call us “bitter clingers.”

        When have the media ever reported facts or engaged in arguments or debates such as how many lives are saved when guns are used for defense? How many school shootings have you read about in the paper that were stopped by guns? John Lott is shut down by leftoid interviewer every time he speaks on one of their shows.

        The media, like other leftoids have an agenda, Agenda 21 to be exact, which incrementally mandates banning guns in the hand of private citizens, but not the government.

        We are being lulled into thinking that black-on-white crime doesn’t exist, that multiculturalism brings peace, love and happiness (see? no need for guns), that government knows best and will protect us. Governments that have disarmed their populace now have a monopoly on power, which they will use, as did Mao, Stalin and Castro to liquidate large numbers of unarmed people.

        If you choose to believe media lies and/or trust that the government best knows how to run your life, be my guest. I’ll keep my guns.

        • Svigor

          Funny, I’ve been calling them “bitter grabbers” for the last few days. They cling to their gun-grabbing ways out of fear. They advance their bitter gun-grabbing agenda with the politics of fear. They’re fear-mongers.

        • lily-white

          Well let’s see where this anti-gun hype is going… Obanga,
          Joe, Nancy and Diane say to expect
          legislation in January… With the
          political climate, it could be the real deal at least with assault weapons… As
          I have told my friends, this government is going to create a lot of criminals
          just by the sweep of a pen and you won’t hear many cries of “ Felon or
          not… I’m keeping my guns”… The reality is… in the worst case… thousands, if not
          millions of Americans (and yes, LOTS O WHITE PEOPLE), will quietly continue
          living their lives in violation of federal law… stashing their assault rifles
          and ammo… and… (yawn) tomorrow begins
          another day …

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            Obongo, Joe Biteme, Nancy Botox, Diane Feinswine and other dangerous NWO power seekers believe that your rights stem from them, that they and big government know best how you should live your life. They are no different from any other power-hungry utopian monster such as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot who liquidated mass numbers of innocent people to implement the same policies 0bama advocates.

            Made-up, political laws are being used as weapons. Today, the government grants permissions — Permission to speak, Permission to conduct business, Permission to use force against assault or attack. Under Natural or Scientific law, an individual’s rights to life, liberty and property were inalienable gifts granted by the Creator, not by government, and could not be erased.

            Jefferson defined liberty as:

            “…unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is but a tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

            The Founding Fathers well knew about tyranny, political power and the will to use it against innocent people and it is for THIS reason the 2nd amendment was included as a part of the Bill of Rights, to protect us against dictators, power seekers and tyrants.

            Bon

          • Non Humans

            Yep! When they come knocking for my firearms…
            .
            “Oh, the gun I bought last month? Sorry, it was stolen when Big Government failed to prevent my house from being burglarized three years ago”.

      • gemjunior

        The current narrative absolutely does attempt to pathologize whites who know they need guns to protect themselves against savage blacks and a government-media complex that deliberately looks the other way. And they don’t engage our arguments, preferring instead the ad hominem attacks.

        If any teacher, social worker or janitor – anyone – had a small gun in her purse or in a desk they might likely have stepped behind the busy shooter and blasted him in the back of the head, neck, or spine causing him to drop to the floor and cease the carnage. Not one of the lefties seems to be able to grasp the simplicity of this because they won’t even allow themselves to engage it precissely because it might seem to make sense. And they don’t want to.

        • John Bonham

          Perfect … You might have one or two deaths compared to 20+… So, would it have been worth it ?? YES, ABSOLUTELY !!!…

          You’re right, liberals deny the truth, ALWAYS .. The ends justify the means..

          All you have to do is watch this http://youtu.be/EIGcpnDvmsg and you know what’s going on..

      • Svigor

        What I want to know is, how many people die, on average, every year in mass shootings in America? What’s been the average over, say, the last 20 or 30 years? If it’s such a HUGE problem, then you’d think these statistics would be readily to hand. You’d think the media would have them plastered all over the place. You’d think the gov’t would keep track of the numbers. But so far, I can’t find anything. I can find articles that list mass murders, but lists do not statistics make. How can we have an “epidemic” without statistics?

        Make these people do their homework before even entertaining their ideas about how to solve the problem. They haven’t even made the case that it IS a problem yet. Make them get off their lazy butts and collate the statistics from verifiable sources before letting them talk about what they want to do about the imaginary “epidemic” they’ve fabricated in media land.

        E.g., I got a quick statistic from G**gle on my first tries for some other causes of death, and in all cases the first few results are informative – just based on the G**gle summary blurb on the search results page:

        Bee Stings: about 90.

        Lightning Strikes: about 75.

        Drunk Driving: about 12,000.

        But try that for “mass shootings” and you get nothing. “Mass shootings” don’t even seem important enough for the media or gov’t to give us an annual tally. Or maybe that’s the way they prefer it – maybe they don’t want you to know that “mass shootings” take fewer lives every year in America than bee stings or lightning strikes.

        Do we have an ongoing “bee sting epidemic” and crisis on our hands, demanding infringements on our Constitutional rights? How about a “lightning strike epidemic”?

        Do we really NEED alcohol? There’s certainly no Constitutionally-protected right to manufacture, sell, possess, or consume alcohol. We could save TWELVE THOUSAND LIVES each year with a federal ban on the manufacture or possession of alcohol. This is a national crisis that DWARFS the pitiful nuisance of an “epidemic” known as “mass shooting.” We must prioritize to save the most American lives. We must set aside this storm in a teacup over “mass shootings” and concentrate on the real killer: alcohol.

        Nobody NEEDS alcohol. We should ban it, for our children’s sake.

        • Richard from Vancouver

          “Nobody NEEDS alcohol.” No one needs guns either. It is not a question of need, it’s a question of want and a question of right. Have you ever heard of prohibition? Many people, the innocent and the not so innocent alike, were killed in the most heinous fashion possible because alcohol became the sole commodity of organized crime figures much like illegal drugs are today. You can’t legislate against the consumption of alcohol. People will drink no matter what. You might as well try to legislate against certain foods or types of clothing.
          To decrease deaths from drunk driving one must make it attactive for the drunk driver not to get behind the wheel of his car. Safer, more reliable public transit, cheaper cab fares, mandatory shuttle buses run by the bars and clubs are just a few ideas that are affordable and would eliminate much drunk driving.
          However I do agree with your point that mass shootings are not an epidemic. More people probably die each year from the most innocuous causes than from mass shootings as you have illustrated in your comment. It would only be the most callous individual that isn’t shocked and saddened by the recent school shooting. Gun control isn’t the answer, but what is?

          • Joe Webb

            W. C. Fields: Prohibition? thats carrying democracy too far.

          • Svigor

            True, prohibition of alcohol is a fool’s errand. And even leftoid useful idiots know this. But why should they want to damage freedom far more with a gun ban than an alcohol ban ever could, to save an infinitesimal number of lives, when they aren’t at all interested in saving an enormous number of lives with measures that would be far less damaging to liberty?

          • Non Humans

            In re to the last sentence in your comment:
            Well since the libtards are outright saying that it is “White People Afraid of Minorities (Namely gangsta blacks & latinos)”, and if Gun control isn’t the answer, that leaves only one thing: The Minorities themselves!!
            .
            They plainly say it, and if we indulge them for a second, then we have to admit that white people generally don’t scare easily, on average. Especially the ones who have no issues with guns. What could possibly scare your average white people so badly that we feel a pressing need to lethally arm ourselves?
            .
            I’ll take the Black Gangster Rapist/Burglar/Drug Peddler/Home Invader/Murderer two ghettos over for $400, Alex.

        • Larry Peterson

          You are making a very common mistake believing that facts, statistics, reason, logic and legality will pursuade totalitarians.
          Not so. They are no more interested in safety of school kids than they are in solving any other problem. The only thing they are interested in is raw power.
          Never let totalitarians make you believe that they actually are interested in solving challenges. Never believe that.
          EVERY proposal, solution, policy, law, rule, advisory has only one objective – 100% control of you and your property…ALWAYS.

          • David Ashton

            Facts &c won’t persuade the totalitarians but they help to neutralize their propaganda among the uncommitted sections of the population, and strengthen public resistance.

          • Svigor

            Bingo.

          • pcmustgo

            STATE YOUR FACTS, INCLUDING FACTS ON RACE, IN AN UNFEARFUL, STRONG, CALM AND UNAPOLOGETIC WAY.

          • David Ashton

            You can check the quality of my factual information, arguments and tone, especially on racial biology and “political correctness”, by searching all my contributions under my own name (no fearful pseudonym) on the AR index. I shall not be displeased, however, if other readers find me politer, less bossy or even more amusing THAN YOU.

          • pcmustgo

            No, I wasn’t attacking your style… I was saying that White’s should state the facts in an unapologetic and unfearful way… My comment had absolutely nothing to do with you…

            Talk about not getting tone through emails/computers…

          • David Ashton

            Thank you for stating that your apparent reply to me had “absolutely nothing” to do with me, since I have always tried to be forthright in my comments.

          • Svigor

            I’m not trying to persuade totalitarians with anything, much less facts & reason. I’m trying to give people talking points to peel away their useful idiots, who are much more numerous, and without whom they can’t proceed.

          • http://profiles.google.com/jjames2176 Jesse James

            Bravo.

          • MikeofAges

            And let’s keep in mind, in totalitarian regimes, children often are not safe. Or, if the brainwashing doesn’t quite take, the lose their protected status very early. They may be denied education generally or participation in preparatory education, sent to work early, subjected to reeducation or psychiatric abuses, even, under some regimes, eliminated outright or sent to forced labor as they come of age.

        • Sherman_McCoy

          Good one, Svigor. Th9ugh, it appears that the folks replying didn’t get the sarcasm.

        • The Verdict of History

          Leftist “research” institutes place gun homicides in the 11,000 range, normally…

          But even if the magnitude of the problem were exaggerated, the fact remains that guns should remain out of the hands of members who hail from certain segments of our society…

          Guns are NOT the crux of the issue with respect to PUBLIC SAFETY, the REAL source of concern is, of course, racial.

          Which racial categories are we to target, if at all, with gun control legislation…

          Assuredly, it is those RACIALLY DEGENERATE elements which ought to be subject to gun control, since they obviously pose a danger to themselves and to WHITE communities..

        • SLCain

          Good points. Well said.

        • pcmustgo

          ANSWER: AS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED, OVERALL GUN CRIME AND VIOLENT CRIME IS DOWN. CRIME IN GENERAL IS DOWN FROM IT’S PEAK IN THE 80′S..

        • MikeofAges

          Don’t say anything too loud. They might hear you.

          • Non Humans

            That’s the whole point man, WE WANT to be HEARD!!!
            .
            Enough is Enough of this getting walked all over BS!!

    • David Ashton

      From a Christmas Card issued by the Black Panthers (remember them?):

      Panther: ‘Son, what do you want for Christmas?’
      Child: ‘A machine-gun, shotgun, a box of hand grenades, a box of dynamite, and a box of matches.’

      — Source, George Feaver, “Black Power”, p.158, in Maurice Cranston (ed) “The New Left” (London: Bodley Head) 1970. Get this from your public library for an early introduction to Cultural Marxism, and its links with politicized black violence and the desire for white women.

  • Sam

    This is why they are going after mental illness rather than criminality.

    Mental illness is squishily defined, and the arbiters will end up being social workers who are Marxist angry black women. Guess how they are going to make their decisions.

    If mental illness evaluations could somehow be applied objectively, blacks would be very disproportionately identified as mentally ill due to their behavior problems, but the definition that will be used will have different standards for different groups. An Asian who repeatedly talks back to teacher might be having a behavioral problem, while a black who punches his teacher is a normal black who needs to develop better conflict resolution skills perhaps.

    They already have gun bans for criminal behavior and for possessing a gun near or in a school (with exceptions for CCW permits). They could vigorously enforce those and see a big drop in crime. Unfortunately this would result in DeAndre and Trevon and friends spending a lot of their lives in Federal prison, and we can’t have that, so it’s better to go after something like mental illness, which does not have a clear definition and isn’t adjudicated in court with the same protection a criminal defendant gets. In fact criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty, whereas a determination of mental illness relies on much lower levels of proof (probably expert testimony?) and isn’t based on following clear rules of behavior (we call them “laws”).

    We’re going to hear a lot more about mental illness (applies to whites) and not hear anything about disarming or locking up people with proven criminal records (applies to blacks).

    This article does sum it up perfectly. They want us disarmed so when we have a problem, we need to talk to a unionized affirmative action dispatcher, who will immediately decide how important the call is, and guess what, if it’s a whitey screaming for help, it’s not an important call. When the police show up, they are likely to also be affirmative action hires who will determine what happened based on tribal loyalties. Then the white who defended himself is going to have to face a likely black prosecutor…

    This is the way that even though only 12% of our population is black, they will be able to terrorize and control the rest of us. This is why we need to fight to keep our guns.

    I was amazed to see that Genocide Watch finally mentioned the situation in SA. I’m not expecting to see any rallies or demonstrations any time soon though.

    • WmarkW

      Yeah, they’re after a way to define behavior demographically, because any demographic differentiation is require to put white males into the least desirable class.

      Just like the way domestic violence laws interpret any act by the male as aggression, regardless of what the female has done.

    • refocus
      • Sam

        I read the attached link. Unbelievable! Two white women driving along, one throws a cigarette butt out of the window (ok, she shouldn’t do it, but what’s the big deal) and the police pull her over and they are effectively sexually assaulted for their troubles. Were those police officers “diversities”? I didn’t watch the attached videos.

        That’s something that could have happened to anyone. The police who did that will probably keep their jobs and pensions. Hopefully those women will get millions of dollars, but it depends on state law and if their civil rights were violated or not, and we all know it’s nearly impossible for a white person to have his or her civil rights violated.

        • Svigor

          If by “diversities” you mean dykes, then the answer is “probably.”

          Anarcho-tyranny: pull whites over for throwing a cigarette butt out the window of a car and give them body cavity searches.

          • Sam

            That’s exactly what I was thinking. This is anarcho-tyranny. Whites will get molested for any infraction. All laws are enforced against whites, because we can afford to pay the fines.

            This is a real-life example. My city gives out jaywalking tickets, only to white people, and lets homeless blacks walk down the street smoking pot.

            My city takes years to fix a pothole, but gives parking tickets within minutes.

            My city will pull over a BMW going 10mph over the limit, but will do nothing about an illegal alien driving an unregistered old truck.

            Blacks are perfect for enforcing anarcho-tyranny because they combine an ability to have unwaivering, unthinking enforcement of petty rules with the ability to give a pass based on loyalties. That’s why the TSA is full of them, and why bouncers are often black.

          • pcmustgo

            No, Bouncers and Security Guards are often black because they are bigger, more muscular, know how to fight, tough, and most importantly, those are jobs for dummies/not so bright people… Easy work, as long as you don’t mind standing. Simple jobs.

          • MikeofAges

            Interesting concept, that anarcho-tyranny. Wish I’d coned the term myself. Another name for it: A Road Warrior society, with a clever dictatorship which knows just how to to channel the streaming forces of chaos to meet its own ends.

            Back in the 1990s I got to talk to talk show host Art Bell on the air. He asked me if I thought the future would be “road warrior” or fascist dictatorship. With no hesitation, I answered “road warrior”, because, I said, fascism thrives because it plugs into a desire for respectability on the part of the lower middle class and working class.

            When people no longer have that desire, you are on new ground. When people do not value their own lives, and value yours even less, you have a recipe for permanent social chaos. Dictatorship, as noted, then must learn to manage chaos. An aspiring dictator might even seek to foment chaos into to implement a plan for profiting from it.

            And, no, I am not thinking of Barack Obama, who in spite of his possibly murky and exotic origins, is governing about like any other intellectual liberal would.

            I’m just telling you, as Sun Tzu said very long ago, the form of victory is always changing. So is form of defeat and so is the form of danger. In spite of all of the mean of keeping people under surveillance 24-7 and 365 and otherwise inferring what their activities and intentions are, the stifling dictatorship of the past is not such a risk anymore. Anarcho-tyranny is the new way, indeed. Done right, people don’t even know they are being managed.

          • lily-white

            please allow me… ” What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny” -Samuel T. Francis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis

        • pcmustgo

          NO, THE COP THAT GROPED THEM WAS A DYKISH LOOKING BLOND WHITE FEMALE…. still unacceptable.

    • i am

      “If mental illness evaluations could somehow be applied objectively,
      blacks would be very disproportionately identified as mentally ill due
      to their behavior problems, but the definition that will be used will
      have different standards for different groups.”

      Anyone who is against diversity is mentally ill. Any white kid that doesn’t except being told that he is guilty of racism and inferior to non-whites will be considered mentally ill. The solution will be more degrading of the white child until he either snaps and kills someone, proving that whites are all evil, or commits suicide proving that whites are weak and “can’t take it.”

    • Tucker

      La Pierre’s recommendation to place armed security guards inside our public schools would throw a kink into any future government sponsored, black-ops shooting incidents on public school grounds. Consider this when hearing voices from the anti-gun left camp screaming their opposition to this proposal; it is probably why they oppose it.

      On the other hand, it might also occur to the black ops cabal that they could place their operatives into those positions and thereby have a man on the ‘inside’, which could wind up helping them to plan their false flag operations more effectively, since they would have total access and familiarity with each school’s security measures.

      Therefore, I’d advise very intensive background checks on any armed security guard job applicants. And, a strict prohibition on any foreign nationals or dual citizens being permitted to hold these positions.

      BTW: All four airports involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks were under the supervision of security companies with ties to one specific Middle Eastern foreign nation.

    • pcmustgo

      NO, BLACKS HAVE PROBLEMS /HIGHER RATES OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND NARCISSIST PERSONALITY DISORDER- think, no empathy, cruel, pathological lying, no morals. That is NOT a mental illness. Those are personality disorders that cannot be medicated away or “changed’ in anyway. That is why they are so dangerous and impossible.

      • pcmustgo

        Psychopaths are cunning and calculating- they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re not “mentally ill”.

        • Integration Anxiety

          This is very true. Read a book from Dr. Hervey Cleckley called The Mask of Sanity. Basically, this is a large scale case study of prison inmates who exhibit psychopathic tendencies. There is a checklist of symptoms for antisocial personality disorder. Pcmustgo hit on some of these. Dr. Robert Hare has an updated modern day book about this as well. While it is true that legally it can’t be used as a mental insanity plea, (that may change one day), there are noticeable physical differences in these people’s brains. Many are missing part or all of their frontal lobes. They know how to play the criminal justice system more than a high-priced defense attorney would. So I can see that these people don’t fit into a civilized society, and it is estimated that up to 20 percent of prisons house psychopaths and sociopaths. What do you do with them? Most psychopaths are nonviolent. But the ultraviolent rapists/kidnappers/serial killers throughout American History, white and black, have been deemed psychopathic. Many psychopaths are probably holding high profile political positions. The looney left and renegade right.

  • guest

    More lies from our enemy – the mainstream media. Everything bad that happens, they place the blame on whites. This is why most whites turn to an alternate media source. When the liberal media says that said alternate media source is racist or full of hate, it usually means it’s something more honest for white people. After all, the real truth is something the MSM strives to eliminate.

    • Liberalsuck

      Doesn’t this say a lot about our enemies that they use a tragedy to push their liberal agenda? I know and have met many liberals offline and in person who always find some way to bring up their politics, even when it has nothing whatsoever with the situation at hand.

      • Luis

        When he was Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel said to “never let a crisis go to waste”. Obama is governing according to that maxim.

      • Svigor

        And the first thing they say, in fact their primary argument, when anyone points out that a rapist or murderer is black is “how DARE you politicize this tragedy!”

    • Doppleganger

      “This is why most whites turn to an alternate media source.”

      Most whites don’t turn to alternative media sources. The effects of mainstream media are too apparent for what you say to be true.

  • falsedawn

    Just concentrate on being the best marksman/woman you can be. Nothing else matters at this point.

    • Sean

      Be the best markspeople we can be to defend against marxpeople. Love it.

  • alkoholika2010

    Let me take a wild guess, a guess I would wager any amount of money on–and win without fail. This kosher clown Hugo Schwyzer, and all others of his ilk, live as far apart from the “multiculturalism” they advocate for the rest of us as his paycheck can afford. No doubt in a security building/community behind high gates, patrolled by armed guards.

    It’s time to force these rats into the hell they have unleashed on us, let them enjoy diversity 24/7 and see how much they like it.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      It’s time to force these rats into the hell they have unleashed on us

      Yes, and they run like the scared RATS that they are.

      Here’s a little story from the 1992 Rodney King Riots when “diversity” and “multiculturalism” were hitting a little too close to home for the anti-gun rich elites in Hollywood:

      From Charlton Heston:

      During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, a good many of these folk suffered a change of heart. As smoke from burning buildings smudged the skyline and the TV news showed looters smashing windows, laughing as they carted off boom boxes and booze, I got a few phone calls from firmly anti-gun friends in clear conflict. ‘Umm, Chuck, you have quite a few . . . ah, guns, don’t you?’

      ‘Indeed.’

      ‘Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one, but they have this waiting period . . .’

      ‘Yeah, I know. I remember you voted for that. Do you know how to use a shotgun?’

      ‘No, I thought maybe you could teach me. This is getting a little scary.’

      ‘I noticed. It does that sometimes. I could teach you, but not in an hour. You might shoot yourself instead of the bad guys. The Marines are coming up from Pendleton; that’ll end it. When it does, go buy yourself a good shotgun and take some lessons.’

      My friend writer-director John Milius got more calls than I did. His answer was more forthright:

      ‘Sorry. They’re all being used.’

      Our Rights do NOT come from the likes of Rosie 0′Donnell, Diane Feinstein, Hugo Schwyzer, Katie J.M. Baker, or Michael Moore and they do not have the authority to take those right from American citizens.

      Bon

      • WhiteFalcon1

        Yep! There’s a saying out there, paraphrased something like this: A liberal is a conservative who simply hasn’t been made a victim…yet!

        • Liberalsuck

          There are plenty of liberals–white liberals–who have been victims of crime, but they are still liberal, fully of white guilt, etc. The only thing that will cure these people is to let Mother Nature take her course on them.

    • Svigor

      “Schwyzer” pings my ***dar. Not definitive, of course, but worth a G**gle check I suppose.

      • Davor Thepiesky

        He has openly admitted to engaging in homosex in his past and currently being into very masculine women.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX Jared Taylor

    This article overstates its case. Laws disarming whites will also disarm blacks and everyone else. I see no hint that anyone wants selectively to disarm only whites. In fact, it is law-abiding blacks who are most hurt by gun control. They are the ones who are most likely to be killed when Americans are unable to defend themselves against violent blacks.

    It is also a fact that the three most attention-getting mass killings this year were committed by deranged whites, and in the case of the man who shot up the Sikh temple he does appear to have been angry about what the Left calls “multi-culturalism.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/nokwan.noway No Kwan Noway

      Jared, who pushes for these laws? Seems to me they have one thing in common, and being Democrats is not it.

      • Svigor

        Yes, Jews are very anti-gun (though there is some truth to the position that Jews are found prominently everywhere in politics, they seem to be far more prominent among the bitter grabbers than among the defenders of the 2nd). No need to be squeamish, this fact was being freely thrown around here, on a mainstream political news site.

        • NYB

          In Israel, civilians can be armed with fully automatic weapons for self-defense. As far as I know, no one is complaining.

          • Sam

            My observations of Israel and guns are:

            1. There’s no such thing as gun rights in Israel. In fact Israeli access to privately owned guns is highly restricted. You would not like to be under Israeli gun law. Haven’t done military service? No gun for you! Have done military service? You still have very strict limits on which guns you can own privately, how much ammo you can buy, etc.

            2. There’s little or no gun culture in Israel. Israelis have attitudes about gun control that are similar to American Jews.

            3. It just so happens that many Israelis are on military reserve, and so they can have government-issued weapons. But them taking these weapons home is just like police officers here in the US keeping their weapons with them, and that’s perfectly fine with gun grabbers here, because those are government-issued weapons possessed by government officials. Same with Israeli soldiers and their guns.

            I haven’t fact-checked all this so I may be off, but this is what I’ve picked up for conversations with a lot of Israelis.

          • Sam

            I just found an article that covers this subject in details:

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-dismisses-us-gun-lobbys-inaccurate-claim-about-gun-laws/

            It confirms what I thought about Israeli gun laws. Very restrictive, tons of paperwork and may-issue permits, no gun culture, very few privately owned guns.

        • i am

          Almost every anti-gun law written in the last 50 years was written by jews. Jews were instrumental in passing anti-gun laws in England, Australia, Canada, and the United States. You will not find one “Nazi” that tried to ban guns in the past 60 years, but you will find an endless amount of jews,

          Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not ban guns in Germany or prevent German civilians from owning guns. In fact he removed restrictions set by the Treaty of Versailles. There are two main reasons why there wasn’t wide spread gun ownership in Germany. 1) Between 1933 and 1939, guns cost a lot of money, and most people didn’t make a enough extra money to buy a gun. 2) Once the war started, all gun production was for military use.

          I spoke with many Germans and they all say that Hitler didn’t ban guns. They did say that guns were very hard to get during the war, and the guns that were available were shotguns and 22 rifles. There were no pistols available to buy, unless you purchased one off another civilian who got their’s between 1933 and 1939.

          Sometimes facts hurt.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            Wrong. The Nazis banned “non-sporting” firearms, and all firearms in the 9mm X 19 Parabellum and 7.92mm X57 Mauser calibers (then the standard German military chamberings).

            Senator Dodd used translated copy of the original Nazi gun laws and included it in the text of what became the US 1968 Gun Control Act.

        • pcmustgo

          Hmmm, the Jews where I live in Brooklyn organize crime watch patrols and their neighborhoods are the safest because of it. Don’t know if any guns are involved.

    • Liberalsuck

      True, Mr. Taylor, but whites will be more likely to give up their guns simply because it would the ‘law.’ That is the one folly with whites. We will follow any law no matter how bad it it for us or people we care about because we are a rule of law people.

      • WmarkW

        Good point. Like that fool who was interviews by Anderson Cooper following the Trayvon shooting, who says he follows “street law.”

        Now there’s a form of multi-culturalism that any law-abiding white community should welcome the enrichment from.

    • Enar_Larsson

      1. A blanket assault weapons ban would have a disparate impact on whites.

      2. In the short term that disparate impact may not have a significant effect but when white are both a numerical and political minority and if they have not yet sufficiently paid for the sins of their race, whites not being able to own weapons could be very costly.

      3. With movies like “Machete” and “Django Unchained” and “Lincoln” gaining in popularity, and media blaming mass shootings on frustrated whites and incumbent presidential regimes threatening minorities with future persecution should the angry white man party win, an increase in organized violence against unarmed whites seems like a real possibility. Even if those bent on vengeance have no guns themselves they will be much harder to defend against without guns.

      4. If, as seems more and more likely, prospective gun owners are forced to undergo any kind of “mental health” background check, you can be sure that racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, second amendment advocacy, states’ rights advocacy, and voting Libertarian or Constitution party will be red flags in those evaluations. Hence, they too will have a disparate impact on whites.

      5. I would like to see some non-selective racial statistics on mass violence from the past ten years or so. I’m certainly open to being persuaded but at this point I’m not convinced that whites are disproportionate perpetrators of this kind of crime. Either way, I think it is important to get the numbers right before any concessions are made.

      • Svigor

        I’d like to see statistics on mass murder over the last 10+ years of any kind. As far as I can tell, the matter is not important enough to the gov’t and media for them to even collect statistics.

      • pcmustgo

        HOW DOES ADAM LANZA FIT THE PROFILE OF A WHITE MALE ANGRY AT MULTI-CULTURALISM… HE GUNNED DOWN KIDS AT A LILY WHITE SCHOOL…

    • Joseph

      As you well know, more blacks by far are ineligible to even possess firearms. The ones who do, and statistically wreak most of the violence are simply NOT going to be equally affected by any law restricting them. Again, this is another move calculated to differentially and adversely affect whites who legitimately own guns in much greater proportions. While it is true that most of these mass-killings have been the deeds of white lunatics, note that they have carefully avoided mention of the so-called DC Sniper, which was a tag-team of two black men, nor Colin Ferguson, for whom larger-capacity handgun mags were banned, nor Hulon Mitchell, because this does not fit the preferred narrative of illiterate white rednecks and “troubled white youth with free access to military-grade weapons”.

      Bad as it is, this amounts to a few weeks of living in nay black-dominated city but that is the unspeakable truth not serving the interests of social reformers and proponents of universal weapons bans.

      If anything, the reverse racism is understated and the importance of an armed, peaceable citizenry putting fear into the minds of social malefactors, both private and publicly employed, cannot be overstated.

    • Pelayo

      I would wager that a great number of Blacks who own guns do not own the legally ergo the ability of the “government” would be greatly handicapped vis a vis the disarming of Blacks. In New Jersey for example all local PDs keep files on the registered gun owners.

    • Svigor

      Laws disarming whites will also disarm blacks and everyone else.

      Nope. Laws can be selectively enforced, for one thing; fines are better collected from middle class whites than from poor blacks, for one thing. Legal battles are more easily fought by rich people, for another. (red tape is also easier for rich people to cut through)

      Plus, law-abiding people will be far more likely to obey (and therefore, suffer under) gun prohibition than non-law-abiding people. Which category is whiter, and which blacker, do you think?

      Also, black crime thrives in a disarmed society, where the brutish and poor can more easily intimidate the more intelligent and wealthy.

      • pablo

        Agreed.

        Just look at the difference between whites getting welfare,loans,school enrollment/etc. The standards and barriers are much higher for whites. Its hard for a white to get welfare but minorities get it just upon applying.

        Gun laws would be tougher for whites than blacks and other minorities. Just by being applied differently or stricter for whites than others. That is the trend for todays “laws”. Selective enforcement.

        • NYB

          Whites are very easy to track down. Blacks can’t even be relied upon to have valid I.D. for voting purposes.

          Law-abiding whites would be the low hanging fruit in gun confiscation.

        • pcmustgo

          It’s more that the welfare offices are manned by Angry Black Females who find ways of turning whites away.

      • Dave4088

        True, Svigor. The fact remains that the highly restrictive gun measures being considered would disproportionately affect whites since we are the majority and since we possess most of the legal guns in this country. Further, whites revere the second amendment more than any other racial group in America. So while theoretically gun owners of all races will be adversely affected, the reality is that the hammer will fall hardest on the white population and I don’t think this is a coincidence.

    • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

      An article that overstates its case for the safety concerns of White people is certainly a reasonable counterbalance to a society/media that purposely goes out of its way to understate the astonishing discrepancies of black-on-White crimes.

      Law-abiding blacks who might be hurt by gun control are of little concern to me. They represent maybe 5-10% of the legal gun owners. The blacks have the advantage of slinking back into their communities under the guise of “hate Whitey,” and they won’t be attacked because of some perception of White Privilege. White people(old, young, male, female, law-abiding, criminally-inclined, etc.) do NOT have that advantage. In fact, black people believe White people and guns are synonymous, and if you remove that you remove a great many of the hesitations that blacks have in targeting White people. South Africa was an excellent analogy.

      • pcmustgo

        Even middle class blacks “blend” in better in the hood than whites. Whites stick out like a sore thumb begging to be victimized.

    • Semper Fidelis

      It is also a fact that the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history was committed by a deranged non-White named Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech just 5 years ago in 2007. Another fact is the killing of 7 people last April by another deranged Korean foreigner named One Gho whose rampage at the Oikos University in Oakland, CA has been conveniently forgotten by the MSM.

      As we all know, it is also a fact that there are still many more Whites in the US (not for long obviously) than any single minority group, and the odds are that Whites would end up committing most of these crimes. The issue as usual is that we are again targeted and vilified as the sole perpetrators of gun crimes, when the overwhelming majority of overall gun crimes are committed by non-Whites even though they still aren’t the combined majority of the US population.

      If this is really you who posted this comment Mr. Taylor, I have to say with all due respect that these are highly disappointing concerns and observations on your part…

      • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

        They always seem to conveniently forget the ones who aren’t White. American Indian, Jeffrey Weise, killed 9 at Red Lake High School in 2005. There are also many incidents throughout the past decade where non-Whites have killed people at schools or just after school events; whether it be by guns, knives, baseball bats, fists, or whatever else, non-Whites(most blacks) are extremely overrepresented in violent crimes in every facet of society, schools included.

        As has already been mentioned, the topic of “assault rifles” and how White people are supposed to be the crazed gunmen types always steers clear of incidents where you have psychotic non-Whites like the DC snipers?

        Why am I supposed to know about the Sikh temple shooter who killed six people because he was against multiculturalism, but I’m not really supposed to know about Omar Thornton who killed eight White men because he was against racism? http://www.awpn.net/crime/victims/2010-white-victims#manchester-shootings

        Why does a group of Middle Eastern terrorists all of a sudden become a signal that 90-year-old White women should be interrogated and strip searched in order to battle terrorism?
        http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/tsa-apologizes-elderly-women-strip-search-kennedy-airport-article-1.1007725

        So it all begs the question that if blacks are seriously overrepresented in violent crimes and certainly gun-related crimes, then why in the world are White people supposed to be handing over their guns?

        • Dave4088

          The media first blamed the “racist” white victims for Omar’s rampage before burying the story down the memory hole forever. There was no hand wringing and no discussion panels about prohibiting black men from owning firearms.

    • pcmustgo

      The kid who did the shooting at the mall in Clackamas Oregon a few weeks back is NOT white, whatever he checks on his census. He looked Native American, Asian/white mix, or perhaps Latino or Latino/White mix.

      This year, ok, a lot of the shooters have been white, but it’s a matter of which stories the media picks and chooses. They totally coverd up the Omar Thornton case.

      • pcmustgo

        And they’ve been childishly manipulating the statistics in dumbest way… “OMG, MOST OF THESE SHOOTERS ARE WHITE MALES”… Newsflash: Most American Males are White… White males are NOT over-represented if they are 75-80% of these gunmen (I mean, once we take women out of the equation and just look at males).

    • http://www.facebook.com/tardola.anthony Tardola Anthony

      To Mr.Taylor: Although, i don’t subscribe to your racial theories; however, i agree with you head on with this statement. Your right in the fact that if we disarm law abiding citizens,regardless of race,color, creed, then only criminals will be armed. Also, societies that have strong gun control laws tend to be borderline totalitarian. Thanks for this post and Happy New year!!

    • Michael_C_Scott

      I am terribly sorry, Mr. Taylor, and as much as I wish I could write like you do, I must agree with Svigor. I have seen laws selectively enforced for political purposes.

  • Liberalsuck

    Yes, the rare times a white guy goes on a shooting spree is far FAR more serious than the numerous daily crimes that happen in black neighborhoods. Funny, the liberals and black accuse whites of stereotyping, yet only when whites commit racial attacks do we hear calls for “talks about racism” or “Hate Crime laws” or calls for more gun control.

    • Luis

      You’ll also hear more cries for gun control within the Bantu community, after one Bantu shoots another. They’ll NEVER blame the shooter(s), only the gun, as they call for more gun control.

      • Joseph

        That is because the white NRA put those guns in the hands of those disadvantaged “youth”. Why should the poor blacks be blamed for white irresponsibility?

  • WmarkW

    Does anyone have a reasonably current measure of the USA homicide rate by race that breaks out Hispanics separately? I’m engaged in a discussion on another site about the “Canada vs. USA” homicide rate, and would like to show how different our true-White rate is from theirs; refuting the idea that it’s “culture” (something to fault whites) that causes the difference.

    • Svigor

      It’s evidence enough to just point out that the gov’t hides mestizo crime among the white stats. And to show the huge difference it makes when you separate out black crime from overall American crime. At that point the burden’s on them to either concede the point, or demand accurate record-keeping before making apples to oranges comparisons.

  • anarchyst

    I hope the NRA does not give in to so-called “reasonable” gun control as they did with the “1968 Gun Control Act” and the “assault weapons ban”.
    Quite often gun owners are their on worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like “black rifles” so they don’t care if they are banned. The competitive shooters don’t like the machine gun owners (yes, there are many legally owned machine guns in the USA) so they don’t care if there are additional restrictions put on them. Let’s face it. . . ANY ban or restriction is a “slippery slope that will resuilt in the banning of ALL firearms. We need to “hang together” or we will all “hang separately”. ALL firearms enthusiasts and gun owners must band together . . .

    • Liberalsuck

      You have to hand it to leftists and to our enemies. They can unite well and not have all this little bickering and factions within their own ideologies. This happened in Spain in 1931 as there were so many factions within conservative parties then that the communists were able to control the government of Spain until 1936 when the Spainards had enough by then and it was General Franco who pulled them out of that mess.

  • David Ashton

    Kwanzaa comin’ up, nome sane?

  • potato78

    If people have motivation to kill anything, then people will kill with anything, such as guns, knifes, bats, stones. But there is efficiency here, what will be a more efficient weapon to kill?

    Guns. But people always use the term “people kill people, not guns kill people.” Fine. We can take.
    However, the question will be left for which factor is crucial or the most important?

    We can either control guns or control people. If we don’t control guns, which is not factor of killing people. then we have to control people, which is more sounding “people kill people.”
    But how do you control people? that is a huge question and very difficult to control.
    The cost must be very high for “controlling people”. I don’t like to control people.
    Then coming down to the easy way is “controlling guns”, the cost is away much lower than “controlling guns”.

    Or we don’t have to control anything, just let it go and see what will happen. Then I think that it eventually will lead to kill the west civilization as a results. western culture = gun violence?

    • Remington

      It sounds like English, but we still can’t understand a word you say. Take an ESL class already Chung-Ho !

    • toldev

      Yes, guns are more efficient at killing people than knives or baseball bats. However, guns are pretty inefficient as tools of indiscriminate mass murder. The best tools to use for indiscriminate mass murder would probably be explosives or poison.

      The left assumes that if guns are harder to get, this will stop deranged people from going on killing sprees. What is likely to happen is that deranged people will be motivated to use deadlier tools to carry out their killing sprees.

    • Pelayo

      We don’t want all people “controlled”. Humans have the ability to make choices and most people choose wisely. The job of the government or the duty of the people is to protect the law abiding, productive segment of the population from those who don’t make good choices. The “Government” and its subsets of State and Local governments are unwilling to do what is one of their main duties. People who wantonly kill and otherwise injure other people , need to be removed from this life. I don’t know how many states have abolished the death penalty. Those who did have given murderers de facto carte blanche to continue to kill others. They can kill other inmates (sometimes that’s no great loss), corrections officers and even the Warden; Hell, they can kill a hundred people and there’s no other punishment that can be administered to them.

      The bottom line is the the death penalty MUST be returned and it MUST be used. The check list should be: arrest, arraignment ( same day or night) let those poor excuses for judges haul their butts out of bed at night if necessary, a fair trial, verdict and if guilty, sentencing, execution no more than two weeks after sentencing,

      Psychotics should be permanently institutionalized if they’ve shown homicidal tendencies. If they’ve already killed, as did the Colorado nutcase, they should be euthanized. That bastard in New York state beat his 92 year old grandmother to death with a hammer. He was allowed to plead down to manslaughter. HE should have been executed. Those two firemen and his sister would be alive today.

      From the sky, we rained down death in various forms and annihilated probably one million Viet citizens (Old people, young men and women, kids) who never did a thing to us and all supposedly sparked by LBJ’s and MacNamara’s phony Gulf of Tonkin attack. We wasted the lives of 50,000 + of our own young men and the thousands more who came home with fewer body parts than those with which they left and some with severe mental issues.

      But God forbid that we should kill violent, savage, soulless murderers who take the lives of the innocent.

      Letalvus Cobbins and LeMaricus or whatever his stupid f—ing name is) Davidson are getting another trial. They should have been dead by now. The judge in their case was addicted to prescription drugs. Apparently, that changes all the irrefutable evidence presented against these worthless PsOS. That will bring Channon and Christopher back from the other side. That case should have been a cake walk. I don’t care if the judge had Downs Syndrome. Those bastards were guilty and should be dead.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      People used to be expected to control their own behavior, but the liberal left has done its level best for 45 years to eliminate from society the level of personal responsibility that once passed for normal in the US.

  • JohnEngelman

    The appears to be a long-term agenda: Disarm white people and make them dependent for security on a government that despises them.

    - Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 24, 2012

    Gregory Hood seems to be projecting his attitude about the government onto the government. The United States is a democracy. Although my candidates often lose, I trust the government more than the business community, and especially the corporate elite.

    I would like for gun ownership to be treated the way automobile ownership is: as a privilege granted by the government, rather than as a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Gun owners should be required to take a test in order to buy a license. Every gun should be registered with the FBI, or a similar organization. Gun owners should be required to give that organization the result of a ballistic test for every gun they own. That way, whenever a crime was committed the owner of the gun could be identified.

    Would criminals obey all this? No. Nevertheless, this would take guns out of circulation. It would also give law officials the ability to put more criminals in prison.

    • anarchyst

      You are incorrect–the United States of America is a representative republic–NOT a democracy. The US Constitution puts limits on GOVERNMENT–NOT the individual. Our “rights” come from our CREATOR–NOT government. You, of all people, should know this, Mr. Engelman.
      By your unqualified “trust” in government, you appear to be one of those “boxcar jews” that would willingly get on the train to oblivion (and even “help” your fellow jews, just as George Soros did).
      The Second Amendment to the Constitution is an “insurance policy” (that one hopes never has to be used) against an oppressive government. It also limits government in restricting weapons (although government has done what it pleases contrary to this amendment).
      Before you go off and ask “what can a ragtag band of true patriots do against the world’s best trained military”? just watch. Our military in Afghanistan and Iraq are facing a determined guerilla “movement” that employs “hit-and-run” tactics. Our military is quite often “bogged down” by its own tactics and restrictions imposed by politicians.
      IF insurrection were to come to the United States, our “government” would be forced to use foreign troops to attempt to quell such disturbances. It is clear that many of our own troops would refuse to fire on Americans.

      • Svigor

        Why do you NEED an assault weapon?

        First, let us deal with the malapropism inherent in the term, “assault weapon.” All weapons are “assault weapons.” Thus, the term is a redundancy. It’s like calling a fork an “eating fork” or a car a “vehicular car.”

        I need a weapon to defend myself, my family, and my loved ones and friends, and even strangers I deem worthy. I need a weapon to put food on my table if, God forbid, it comes to that. I need a weapon to do my duty as an American and train myself to properly defend my country and my fellow citizens from foreign or domestic enemies. I need a weapon to show my bona fides as a genuine American and my support for the 2nd Amendment and the industry that fulfills the promise of the 2nd Amendment. I need a weapon to defend against tyranny, just as the Founders intended. I need a weapon so I can make a nice profit on my investment the next time the un-American gun-grabbing totalitarians try to ram through an illegitimate “law” infringing on the right to bear arms, and prices rise dramatically.

        But the real answer here is to answer with another question: Why do you need to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights? Why do you need to destroy what the Founders created? Why do you need to behave in such an un-American fashion? I no more need to explain why I want a weapon than you need to explain why you want to speak freely.

        The Founders never could have foreseen semi-automatic or automatic weapons.

        The founders ratified the Constitution in 1791. Firearms were still a relatively new technology at the time, having only come into widespread use in the 2-300 years or so previous. And they were still subject to rapid innovation. Surely a society not too far removed from the ancestral memory of melee weapons as the primary tool of close combat could appreciate the possibility of rapid innovation in warfighting and self-defense technology. The saber was still widely in use at the time. The Founders knew damned well what they were doing. Far better than Americans generally understand their thinking 220 years hence, it seems.

        And what were they doing, exactly? A bit of thinking on this point is instructive: they were putting the primary weapons of war into the hands of the citizenry. In 1791, small arms were a far bigger, more essential part of fighting a land war than they are today. In 1791, there were basically three classes of weaponry used in land warfare: the melee weapon (e.g., sabers and bayonets), the firearm, and cannon. If you told the generals of the time to pick one of these classes to fight a war, and forego the other two, I daresay the vast majority of them would have chosen the firearm. Today, warfare is much more complex. We have fighter jets, bombers, missiles and artillery of every conceivable type, tanks, mines, grenades, etc. Small arms are a much smaller share of the overall arsenal today than they were in 1791. Small arms were a much bigger share of of the overall arsenal in 1791 than they are today. Thus, the right to bear arms is today a much-diminished share of the ability to wage war, compared to the right to bear arms in 1791. In other words, the Founders were putting a far greater share of warfighting ability in the hands of the American citizenry when they ratified the Constitution in 1791 than Americans enjoy today under the 2nd Amendment.

        Thus, the implication that the Founders would be appalled at the power they granted to their posterity via the 2nd Amendment is on its face absurd. The Founders were putting state-of-the-art warfighting technology into the hands of the citizenry. They wanted the citizenry to have the power to wage war against the government, toe to toe, on an equal footing. If anything would appall them about the situation today, it would be that the ensuing, dramatic period of innovation in military technology in the 20th century has so greatly upset the balance and parity they intended between the military capability of the government and that of the citizenry. And that so many deluded fools are now trying to further upset that balance in the government’s favor, and have had so much success. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he’d be lobbying to remove all current infringements on the right to self-defense, most likely starting with the ban on automatic weapons.

        • anarchyst

          Svigor, you are absolutely correct. I was responding to Mr Engelman’s diatribe. Best regards . . .

          • Svigor

            I just randomly attached my comment to whatever was at the top, to get more views. More fool I, it has eventuated in the opposite effect.

        • SLCain

          Well said. The real answer to the question “Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?” is:

          “None of your damned business! It is my right, which I am entitled to exercise as I deem fit.”

          • Svigor

            That’s a true answer, but not a particularly good one. In a healthy, sane republic, your answer would be good enough. But we aren’t in a healthy, sane republic, we’re in an unhealthy, insane republic. And in the asylum, you must appeal to the insane in language they can understand.

            I prefer to turn the question around, at the least: “why do you NEED to shred the Constitution? Why do you NEED to break the law? Why do you NEED to take away freedoms and liberties and rights?”

          • Michael_C_Scott

            Because he and people like him feel insecure.

          • SLCain

            I agree – we do not live in a healthy sane republic. The answer I gave is, I think, a reasonable one, but – you are right – other answers are fine too. And turn-about, as you say, is a good place to start.

      • JohnEngelman

        Definition of REPUBLIC

        a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of governmentb (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government…
        Synonyms: democracy, self-government, self-rule
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

        ——–

        democracy  [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPAPart of Speech:nounDefinition:government in which people participateSynonyms:commonwealth, egalitarianism, emancipation,equalitarianism, equality, freedom, justice, liberalgovernment, representative government,republic
        http://thesaurus.com/browse/democracy

        A democracy is a government in which we select our rulers by contested elections. A republic is a government in which t he rulers are not hereditary.

        The distinction between a republic and a monarchy is no longer important, now that there are figurehead monarchs, and dictatorships in which the dictator does not owe his power to inheritance.

        The United States is both a democracy and a republic.

        If there is an insurrection in the United States it will be an armed coup by a minority of murderous fanatics. I want the government to crush it.

        • David Ashton

          “A democracy is a government by men, a republic a government by law.”

          “A democracy is a tyranny of mob, a republic is a tyranny of lawyers.”

          “‘A democracy and a republic’ is a tyranny of money.”

          Discuss.

          • JohnEngelman

            If “a republic is a government by law,” who makes the laws?

            If an absolute monarch makes the laws, it is not a republic; it is a monarchy. If a dictatorship makes the laws, it is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. If elected officials make the laws, the government is a democracy. If the government has a figurehead monarch, the government is not a republic; otherwise it is.

            As best as I have been able to find out, the saying, “The United States is a republic, not a democracy,” goes back to the 1950s. It may have originated with the John Birch Society.

            Back then reactionaries were angry at President Eisenhower because he did not repeal the reforms of the New Deal. In a letter to his brother, the President said that those reforms were popular with the voters, and that it would be politically dangerous to tamper with them.

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp

            When reactionaries realized that they were politically marginal they invented the false dichotomy between a democracy and a republic in order to deny that the will of the majority is legitimate. In effect they said, “It does not matter that most of the voters favor Social Security, labor laws, minimum wage laws, and so on. What does matter is that the United States Constitution prohibits those.”

        • SLCain

          People who start posts by posting definitions are juvenile losers.

          Loser.

        • Michael_C_Scott

          In some dictatorships, the dictator does owe his power to inheritance: North Korea and Syria are great examples, and in Iraq and Libya, both Saddam Hussein and Moummar Kadaffi (sp?) were grooming sons to succeed them. This is a stable system in a modern dictatorship, provided the dictatorial family can keep the elites (usually the military brass) happy. Think of these military elites as a modern equivalent of landed aristocracy.

          Absolute monarchy is alive and well.

      • David Ashton

        Mr Engelman is not a “boxcar jew” but a church-going “Nordic Gentile” (or so he says). For an Obama-voting self-admitted statist, who had good friends in the CPUSA, who recommends viewing “The East is Red” (the triumphalist Communist movie that came between Mao’s man-made famine and his equally murderous cultural revolution) and who seems quite happy at the prospect of China replacing the West as world-ruler, his statements have a touch of oddity about them all the same. As for mass-killers in the world, don’t forget North Korea or the African child-armies, for that matter.
        Switzerland manages with private gun ownership for national defense, so why not white America?

        • SLCain

          “…..(or so he says)”

          He says a lot of things. I wouldn’t believe them. He’s a deceitful louse.

        • SLCain

          Notice the language used by this…..thing, Engelman…..”A democracy is a government in which we select our rulers by contested elections.”

          He thinks we have “rulers”. Free men to not have “rulers”. The government is not supposed to “rule” us – it is supposed to work FOR us. Such are the instincts of this totalitarian groupie.

      • Joseph

        I think it is foolish to believe that the paid military forces of the US will not, overwhelmingly, do what they are told to do when their paycheck and possible imprisonment depend on their compliance. Soldiers turned their guns on their own brothers in the American Civil War A major error is thinking “It can’t happen here.” -because it did.

        Some might resist and there might be some saboteurs among the ranks, but most will take care of themselves first and rationalize the necessity of violating the clearly stated liberties of the people because of some “emergency”, as we were warned by William Pitt:

        “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

      • SLCain

        anarchyst JohnEngelman • 2 days ago

        “You
        are incorrect–the United States of America is a representative
        republic–NOT a democracy. The US Constitution puts limits on
        GOVERNMENT–NOT the individual. Our “rights” come from our CREATOR–NOT
        government. You, of all people, should know this, Mr. Engelman.”

        Why would he – of all people – know this? He is a socialist – a worshipper of government power. He views the people as the property of the government.

    • Svigor

      Who cares what you would like? You clearly wouldn’t like rule of law, which states that a Constitutional Amendment is required to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

      • JohnEngelman

        Many on the right want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which authorizes the graduated income tax, and the Sevententh Amendment, which authorizes democratic elections of Senators.

        I want to repeal the Second Amendment. It is a dangerous anachronism. When considering a gun control law the question should not be, “Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?” The question should be, “Will this law reduce gun violence?

        • Joseph

          Since wars can be started by communicating revolutionary ideas, or people may be defamed and libeled by internet blogs or typewriters. The question should be: “Might this prevent a war or loss of livelihood for someone? No one needs a DVD burner. The question ought to be:” Will this reduce theft of billions of dollars worth of intellectual property?” I guess those should be reviewed for their modern relevance also. The founders never envisioned a time of instant global communication where so many could be harmed by so few at one time.

          You’ve already expounded on the dangers of religion so freedom of speech and assembly would reasonably follow.

          You put up some good stuff here but I swear I think you sit around dreaming up these controversies in some paternalistic mindset to “help the little people along in their growth”.

          This is “AMERICAN Renaissance” -not European Clone or Asian Welcome Wagon.

          • potato78
          • currahee1911

            Engelman: molon labe!

          • potato78
          • Remington

            Both rail transport and the train were invented by WHITE people in the first place ding dong, and the French already have the record of the fastest RAIL train (574.8 km/h or 357.2 mph).

            http://www.metacafe.com/watch/508521/worlds_fastest_rail_train_tgv_574_8_kph_inside_footage/

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6521295.stm

            You are not one of us Chung-Ho, and we don’t need YOU..

          • potato78

            You are not one of us, dusky hairy hybrid b…

          • Remington

            Nice drawingsChung-Ho…What’s next ? Anime cartoons ?

            I don’t know what’s his problem, but I’d bet it’s hard to pronounce!

          • SLCain

            Engelman is a communist tool. He is not a supporter of white interests. He voted for Barack Obama. He’ll riff a little HBD stuff to fool people, but he is most definitely an enemy of most everyone here. His every post drips with contempt for white Americans and their traditional culture.

        • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

          Instead of Yellow John, would it now be more appropriate to call you Orange John.

        • Svigor

          Many on the right want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, which
          authorizes the graduated income tax, and the Sevententh Amendment, which
          authorizes democratic elections of Senators

          That’s relevant because…?

          You have a tiresome habit of changing the subject and blathering about irrelevancies. That’s when you aren’t ignoring what counterarguments and refusing to treat people with a bare modicum of civility.

          I want to repeal the Second Amendment. It is a dangerous anachronistic.
          Civilized countries do not have anything like that.

          Wow, that was really persuasive. When you called the Constitution “dangerous,” “anachronistic,” and uncivilized, something came over me. A light shone down from Heaven, and I realized “hey, freedom and liberty really do suck!” I suddenly saw the error of my ways. It wasn’t a bunch of fluff, signifying nothing but your lack of argument; not at all.

          Hey, at least you’re a bitter grabber with an erg of honesty, and come right out and admit you hate the 2nd Amendment (and by implication, that you also hate America, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, Liberty, and Freedom). I have to admire you just a little bit for that, at least.

          I confess, I’d love to put you in charge of the bitter grabber lobby. I wish all you bitter grabbers would just go right for the 2nd Amendment, and stop nibbling around the edges.

          When considering a
          gun control law the question should not be, “Is this consistent with the
          Second Amendment?” The question should be, “Will this law reduce gun
          violence.

          Can you explain to me, this borderline-retarded libtard obsession with “gun violence”? Pretty please? How is dying from a bullet wound somehow worse than dying from a knife, strangulation, blunt trauma, etc? I.e., how am I any better off dying at the hands of a disarmed thug?

          Because that’s the implication you bitter grabbers make when you talk about “gun violence” instead of just “violence.” It’s as if you really do believe that the guy you just took the gun from can’t pick up a bat or a knife and go do what he was about before you grabbed his gun. It suggests either monumental stupidity, or thoroughgoing dishonesty.

          Why not talk about reducing violence, period? If there’s a reduction in gun violence, but not in violence, all you’ve done is take away freedom and liberty for no reason at all. And the term “gun violence” suggests that you’re after exactly that; a reduction in “gun violence,” and overall violence be damned.

        • MikeofAges

          Do you have 2/3 of both houses and 38 states?

        • alex

          It will increase non-white on white violence.

        • Michael_C_Scott

          Repealing the Second Amendment would be interesting, if one wanted another civil war. Perhaps you should ask yourself your own question “will this reduce gun violence” about an attempt at the repeal you propose.

      • SLCain

        You are not quite right. Even absent the second amendment, people have a right to own guns. There should be no presumption that simply because a right is not explicitly protected, that the federal government has the authority to infringe that right. In fact, many objected to the Bill of Rights for that very reason – that it could be construed to imply that the government was entitled to infringe those enumerated rights, when, in fact, they were assumed to rights of the people.

        The presumption underlying the Constitution was, and ought to be, that what the government is not expressly permitted to do, it is forbidden from doing.

        • Svigor

          True, rights do exist in the face of tyrannical laws that would infringe upon or obviate them. If I gave any other impression, I can only chalk that up to the difficulty of maintaining perfect diction and intellectual rigor in the conversational back-and-forth format of a comments thread.

    • W. G.

      Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman-Sachs, 1999-2006; Secretary of Treasury, 2006-2009

      Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton, 1995-2000; Vice-President of the U.S., 2001-2009

      Mr. Engleman still holds the touching and quaint belief that the state, which he trusts, and the corporate elite, which he distrusts, are two separate things.

      • JohnEngelman

        I notice that those men are Republicans. The way to reduce corporate power is to prohibit private campaign contributions and introduce government financing of elections. That is the it is done in other affluent democracies. It works well.

        • W. G.

          I’ve noted that those who deprecate the power of corporations are often enthusiastic for increasing the power of the state. What makes you so sure that the one is preferable to the other?

          • JohnEngelman

            I vote for politicians. I do not vote for CEOs.

        • currahee1911

          They would find so many different ways to promote a candidate without mentioning any names. Want to ban something? Ban TV promotional ads which are in any sense political in nature.

          Of course, any such prohibitions are a clear violation of the First Amendment. Although Judge Roberts would find a way around that small obstacle.

        • David Ashton

          How would the taxpayer’s money be distributed among potential candidates? Would “hate speech” candidates and parties be denied funds? Would members of parties be denied the right to fund candidates?

      • SLCain

        Engelman’s beliefs are not “touching” and “quaint”. He is a communist who wants to see you robbed of your liberties and your nation. He is an enemy, not an ally.

    • SLCain

      Gun ownership is a right, you vile piece of communist filth. Free men do not trust their security to a government, especially a government that despises us, as ours does.

      Especially a government presided over by a socialist like Barack Obama, whom YOU have often bragged of voting for.

      Everyone hear – mark what this loathesome piece of garbage, Engleman, says. You think that he is really on our side?

    • MikeofAges

      People have a natural law right to personal ground transportation subject to reasonable and necessary regulation. While it might be possible for the government to eliminate or severely limit the private motor vehicle, once it allows the private motor vehicle, then all regulations have to pass through the filter of due process, equal protection and common law and natural law rights. Thus, the right to a driver’s license is exactly that, a right, limited only the state’s reasonable power to show cause why a particular individual should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Failure to pass a driving test, failure to attain an sufficient age, loss of capacity or failure to adhere to laws and regulations appurtenant to operating a motor vehicle can be taken as a cause to deny the right, not a process through which an arbitrary “privilege” is granted. Under this theory, a driver’s license could not be taken away for reasons not appurtenant to the individual’s capacity to operate a motor vehicle.

      Shame on you for thinking all rights come from the state. There are reasons apart from your anti-Caucasian claptrap why you often are not so popular around here.

      • JohnEngelman

        Shame on you for thinking all rights come from the state.

        - MikeofAges

        You seem to think that rights have some sort of absolute existence, like the truths of the multiplication table, or the periodic table of the elements. If you think you have an absolute right to criticize the government, travel to North Korea and see what happens to you when you exercise that right.

        • Michael_C_Scott

          They do. Rights are absolute, and I have proven it every chance I have been allowed. Nobody in their right mind tries to “arrest” me in my own home.

          My rights are those things for which I would kill or die for. What “rights” do you have?

          • JohnEngelman

            If you need to be arrested in your own home you certainly will be. If you resist you will be killed.

            My rights consist of privileges those with the power to deny me these privileges choose to grant me.

            For example, I have the right to post here, despite occasional complaints about my presence, as long as Jared Taylor permits me to.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            I will certainly die someday. The question of the hour is “How many people are certainly willing to go with me for a paycheck.”

            Nobody is willing to be killed for a living, John.

          • SLCain

            You have the mentality of a slave.

            Stop wasting our time with your odious posts. You are obviously mentally deranged. Go away.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            Then you have no rights.

        • MikeofAges

          The point, Mr. Engleman, is that our philosophical beliefs regarding these matters determine what kind compact we might make when voluntarily form a government and what restraints we might seek to put on government when and where it already exists. The reason why something terrible would happen to someone who criticizes the North Korean government is because the North Korean government is a criminal dictatorship.

          What I think is that we should not accept the argument that our power to participate the normal activities of a free life is a privilege granted by an otherwise omnipotent state. A legitimate state protects our rights. An illegitimate state usurps them and limits them unjustifiably. Back to the issue of the driving “privilege”, no it is not a privilege created by an all-nourishing state. I think my original argument was sufficient to cover the concern that arise from this idea. You have a natural law right to breath, but that doesn’t mean that you can go anywhere there happens to be air to do so or that you can with impunity devise some obnoxious way to exercise that right

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Make no mistake: This is a part of the War on Whites.

    And, the power-seekers in the American government are stepping up their anti-gun demands and policies.

    Yesterday:

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.

    Feinstein also said that that former President Bill Clinton had volunteered, on a phone call, to help her get a new gun law passed.

    This is the same hypocritical Feinswine who had a gun permit herself while fighting vigorously to keep YOU from obtaining one to protect yourself and loved ones.

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.

    ‘Confiscation could be an option,’ Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. ‘Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.’

    It is because of pols like Cuomo and Feinstein that the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Amendment.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648

    Bon

    • Svigor

      Let them disarm themselves in NY, if that’s their wish. It’ll drive even more of the real Americans out, and cripple leftoids’ ability to defend themselves.

  • JohnEngelman

    America’s love affair with the gun is often attributed to our pioneer heritage. Canada and Australia also have pioneer heritages. They also have stricter gun control laws than we do, and lower rates of violent crime.

    What they do not have are large third world populations who display high rates of violent crime everywhere in the world that they live, regardless of gun laws. Many Americans of all races in the United States would like to have something to use against a mugger, an armed robber, or an armed home invader while waiting for the police to arrive.

    I am in favor of gun control laws that reduce the amount of gun violence. I am opposed to gun control laws that make it difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals I acknowledge that the difference between these kinds of laws is often difficult to determine. Nevertheless, I think most of us do not want a sixteen year old boy to walk into a gun store, buy an automatic rifle, a hundred rounds of ammunition pay for it with cash, and walk out, with no questions asked.

    • Joseph

      There is no state in which your imaginative gun store scenario could occur. There is no state where it is legal to transfer ownership of a firearm to any person under 18 nor handgun under 21.

      Further, Canada and Australia are very sparsely populated without the 35 million African slave progeny nor swarmed with mestizos by the hundreds of thousands every year.. The “pioneer” heritage of the countries you cite are very different than America’s.

      Finally, our framers valued the possibility of an armed civil war as a last resort to remove an overbearing government and we thank the God you reject, for it.

    • Diamond_Lil

      Hi John: We have laws already on the books that prohibits a 16 year-old from buying a fund.

  • http://www.facebook.com/priss.morningmist Snapperhead Soup

    http://snapperheadsoup.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-george-zimmerman-is-best-argument.html

    Why George Zimmerman Is the Best Argument for Gun Ownership.

  • blacks are king of murder

    So why not do the math and calculate that even with a few white nutbags who make a big media spectacle with stupidity with multiple senseless killings the all time annual achievement award always goes to black males who use guns to kill at an 800% higher ratio than whites and more of a 24/7/365 endless battle with the cops as opposed to the single white male who always commits suicide proving mental problems.

    Do blacks murder 20k annually because of mental problems or just inbred genetic criminals with access to guns everywhere in the hood mostly stolen off white gun shops or B&E white homes.

    Of course the media never mentions any of this because it does produce the desired effect as taking out the white male and his guns. Rest assured that the few rare times whites kill other whites the media is on it like stink on feces endlessly. How many black kids have been shot dead just in Obama’s Chicago hood’s in the past year?

  • Joe Webb

    this might by flled under “White Individualism.” Whites don’t join gangs while blacks and mexers do (19 to one for Mexicans and 15 to one for Blacks, one being Whites…as I recall from the Color of Crime, or was it the other way round?..for Blacks and Mexicans).

    Blacks and Mexicans join political gangs , ally with White liberals, and get somewhere, or, at least, get the money. Again Whites don’t do that. Whites tend to be loners much more than all other racial groups.

    Gangs are not Us. The only groups that Whites join are church, athletic, and a few recreation oriented groups. Of course, they also are more interested in earned money and affiliate with the Repugnican party for that reason. However, that is not a genuine group with face to face personalized relationships.

    Whites also plan ahead. The Black or Mexican will go out immediately, without a plan, and violate the first person he sees, especially if White.

    Tallking it out , not worrying alone, being with others, “ventilation”, lowers the pressure.
    Whites have no public avenues to express their White racial point of view. Blacks and Mexers have an open mic in the Jewish and LIberal media.
    Then

    • fakeemail

      Whites are generally more individualistic. That’s why you see white men walking by themselves and you always see packs of mexicans or blacks together on the streets.

  • MerlinV

    Michael Moore and his kinsmen fear us rising up against them. Thats why they want us disarmed.

  • fakeemail

    The cops have no obligation to protect you as ruled by the Supreme Court. The govt. wants to take away your right to defend yourself and jail you if you do. The government passes laws that penalize you, but not criminals. The politicians will not punish or imprison NAM criminals because those are the voters that keep them in power.

    This is a government that cares nothing for you. They are only interested in maintaining and increasing their power over you. This is malevolent dictatorship or anarcho-tryanny.

    • Guest

      What does NAM stand for?

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        Non-Asian “minorities.”

        Except in this case, Asians also vote to keep the current government in power. They voted 70% for 0bama.

        Bon

        • JohnEngelman

          Voice Of America November 07, 2012

          Exit polls suggest Asian Americans overwhelmingly voted for President Barack Obama in Tuesday’s election that handed the incumbent Democrat a second term in the White House.

          Preliminary national exit poll data suggested that 73 percent of Asian Americans voted for President Obama, while only 26 percent supported his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.

          The figures were in line with the voting decisions of other larger U.S. minority groups. Seventy-one percent of Latinos said they supported Obama, while 93 percent of African Americans reported voting for the president…

          The Asian-American vote has grown 128 percent since 1996, making them the fastest growing minority in the U.S. in terms of percentage, according to the AALDEF. Still, they only make up about three percent of the overall vote, but that is expected to grow to as high as seven percent in coming years.
          http://www.voanews.com/content/exit-polls-show-asian-americans-backed-obama-by-wide-margin/1540974.html

    • pcmustgo

      I must say here in NYC, I have had the misfortune of having to interact with the Police, and they are surly jerks (yes, even the white ones) AND THEY CANNOT PROTECT YOU, CAN’T DO ANYTHING FOR YOU TIL’ YOU ARE DEAD ON THE PAVEMENT… they are too busy dealing with more serious/already happened crimes to help you if you are being stalked or whatever.

  • Skincognito

    My pro-White gun control proposal: Manufacturers of pistols must ensure that they become inoperable when held sideways. I’m no mechanical engineer, but I’m confident the good people at Smith and Wesson or Glock can make this vision a reality.

  • potato78

    I would like to ask no gun control and no people control. Can you leave people alone and give them more freedom??

    http://news.sky.com/story/1030132/china-opens-worlds-longest-high-speed-railway

  • PesachPatriot

    John Engelman is incredibly naive in wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment….do you really trust that the fedcorpgov we have will not drag you off to a FEMA camp…do you think every blood, crip and gangster disciple will simply turn in their currently illegal weapons? The good thing about the USA is that it is a very big country. People like Mr. Engelman who desire strict gun control laws can live in NYC, Washington DC, LA, Chicago or anywhere else that has severe restrictions on the 2nd amendment. Those of us who truly appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers can live in places like Florida, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado or one of the many other states that upholds the spirit of the founding documents. If mr. engelman is truly unhappy with the 2nd amendment he can also move to canada, australia, the UK or one of the EU countries with super strict gun laws….Don’t Tread on Me john….even though you get a lot of guff from other posters I think you’re ok, just suffering the after effects of lingering libtardism. I’m actually pretty liberal when it comes to plants and gays, but no one should be screwing around with the first or second amendments.

    • Svigor

      Engelman isn’t naive, he’s unbalanced.

      • JohnEngelman

        I would say rather that those who flame me are unhinged.

        • SLCain

          A crazy person would say that. You are clearly deranged – so much so that it is obvious to everyone.

    • JohnEngelman

      The First Amendment has been terribly abused. If the Second Amendment was as loosely interpreted as the First Amendment it would allow the personal ownership of Stinger Anti Aircraft missiles. These are easy to learn how to use. They would enable one to shoot down jet airliners.

      • Michael_C_Scott

        You or anyone else could trust me with a Stinger MANPAD missile or a nuke for that matter, and I’m a convicted federal felon.

  • MikeofAges

    Meanwhile, we had another nightclub-restaurant shooting in the Seattle area, at an establishment in Bellevue, WA called Munchbar. The perpetrator, it turns out, was a 19-year-old black male Ja’Mari Jones who previously was involved in the 2008 beating death of a 53-year-old Seattle street culture icon known as Tuba Man.

    No we are not foll and idiots. We know that certain types of crime are more closely associated with one group or another including our own. This type of crime, the night club shooting, seems to be the specialty of young black guys, and the numbers add up.

    These guys seem to be excused or idealized in some quarters. They do not deserve it. Jones’s first victim was white. The next one has not been identified, but probably he was a black man. Damian “Hotdog” Williams, the black man, then 19, who bashed in white trucker Reginald Denny’s head with a rock during the 1992 L.A. riots later killed a 47-year-old black man described as a drug dealer. I doubt he was much of a dealer, More likely a user who supplied a few people to subsidize his own habit. No Mr. Big, believe me, or a losers like Williams would never have seen his face.

    Interesting how the media spins these stories around whenever they so that people will not see what is going on. Few people have the stamina to fight their way through the media blizzard.

  • LHathaway

    large cities have had ‘gun-buyback’ drives. black citizens weren’t the ones turning in their guns. . .

  • Major

    Whites & Guns? Doubt if a white ever sees this in his “hood”. Take a look at our very own Somalia….I mean Chicago and how the blacks prefer to live.

    Sing it Latisha…Lawanda and Tyrone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wL77-a8H6sc

  • PesachPatriot

    Svigor…I know lots of the prominent jews in media and politics are “bitter grabbers” but they don’t speak for all of us. They live lives of wealth and privilege behind gated communities with armed security. They don’t worry about getting mugged, carjacked, assaulted or raped by vibrant diversity…This sentiment against firearms is also because most of the jews who immigrated to america between 1880-1930 are the descendants of people who lived disarmed for centuries either in eastern europe or the muslim world. Most american jewish parents tell their children that guns are for rednecks/cowboys/hillbillies and hood life gangster types…not nice jewish boys and girls who grow up to become doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial advisors and hedge fund managers. They also have an insane faith in abstract ideals like “law” “justice” “civilization” and so forth despite our often bloody and tragic history. I call this Anne Frank disease. I often say that when it comes to idealism most jews are incorrigible recidivists. My brother in law and his british/jewish wife are very nice people but completely libtarded when it comes to the 2nd amendment and basically have this line of reasoning. In my discussions with others in the jewish community I often tell people that all the wealthy jews of warsaw, vilnius, budapest and prague 70 years ago would have gladly traded in all their money, property, idealism and faith in humanity for a single small caliber handgun and a few bullets.

    This red sea pedestrian is as pro-2nd amendment as it gets. Israel was not founded or defended by felafel parties and talking about our feelings with Syria and Egypt. Anyone who has read enough history realizes that people without guns will eventually get all their decisions made for them by people who do have guns. Those decisions are usually not in the best interest of the unarmed party. Every anti-gun person should be dropped off in Detroit or Atlanta after dark with only their multicultural idealism, good looks, wit and intelligence to protect them…In my heart of hearts I am kind of a hippy idealist myself and wished we lived in a world where everyone could just get along and guns were unnecessary….oh well maybe for my descendants in a few more millenia…fascinating article and discussion

    • pcmustgo

      The Jews (and I am half) suffer from being privileged, sheltered, Upper Middle Class syndrome. Just like Upper Middle Class whites. They aren’t exposed much to diversity, except the urban jews in Brooklyn who are all right wing.

      • JohnEngelman

        Those in the upper middle class to above come into contact with few blacks. Those few are exceptional, or they occupy subordinate positions without resentment. These affluent whites suffer from what George Orwell called “money sheltered ignorance.”

        In order to learn what most blacks are really like it is often necessary to seem them up close every day on terms of approximate equality in an environment where they are in the clear majority. When blacks are in the minority most try to behave. When they are in the majority most behave the way they want to behave. Many do not want to behave well.

        Most blacks are not criminals. Nevertheless, it is wise to take precautions with young black men that are seldom necessary with young white or Oriental men. Do not worry about hurting their feelings. Worry about being hurt or murdered.

  • rochester

    Why do the liberals hate white males with such passion? They continue to post the white male as a national astrocity failing to say the demonic homo rat in the WH is driving them ballistic and he knows exactly what he is doing. The Newtown and Rochester white male killing of whites only was fuel for the media rhetoric fire all the while how many blacks gunned down others in urban America in the same period?

    This idiot says killing is what he did best? Wheres the proof? He set up and shot a few firemen and allegedly killed his grandmother. He couldnt qualify for getting admitted to the crips or bloods with a scant record like that. Was he scared to fight in Vietnam if he was so good at killing? Just an idiot driven to the brink by the onset of Obama.

    Stop feeding the media frenzy to cover for the black killings of about 15k annually in cities. Whites are being driven to the brink by the half breed homo in the WH who is deviously taking the white race apart piece by piece but then again whites do break loose every now and then to kill their own but nothing on the scale of black violence. Normality in a loose society like Amerika that was a mistake from the gitgo especially with the never needed slave issue..

  • John Bonham

    I’m telling you they’re going to push, push, PUSH us around until whites will eventually not take it anymore … This is only going to lead to a civil war ..

    • Svigor

      Disqus needs an “ignore” function that works to permanent effect on posters (as opposed to their individual posts). That way I can put that loathsome Engleman into Amren purgatory where he belongs.

      • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

        Orange John is about as pro-White as Tim Wise. He needs a giant litter box on some remote crevice of the Internet where he can stink everything up until he gets the White Privilege all out of his system.

  • William Allingham

    I think that to even discuss if whites are potential mass murderers is ridiculous, in places like mexico and africa and latin america mass murder HAS ALWAYS BEEN the norm (some looser killed his or her whole family or some lunny made tamales out of human flesh) that makes sometimes its way in the everyday, cheapest yellow press of those countries. Then we see that when they enter America they also commit mass murder in greater proportion than whites if we, take on account they are minorities (see Immigration Mass Murder Syndrome: http://www.vdare.com/articles/vdarecom-s-immigrant-mass-murder-syndrome-count-as-of-july-28-2011-37-cases-337-dead).

    Every country has mass murders, the difference is that in white countries are a concern, so much that they are publicized around the world producing guilt in the average white that had nothing to do with the event, but in backward places where they are more common, they are just ignored in denial cultures that are incapable to deal with their violence because it is so tolerated, protected by the common citizen and ingrained in their character, that they have built for themselves value systems that afford them to be dishonest and careless.

    we have to wake up to the fact that everybody has the same “potential” (although potential doesnt means actually putting in practice) of doing evil (nobody is unique in that respect) the things that makes us different is the capacity of doing creative useful, beautiful, intelligent things (some people lack totally these capacities and resource to parasitism) and human groups that have more of the latter will cope better with life problems and achieve greater things.

  • WhiteFalcon1

    Ironic that you can’t counter- post there without registering to their site first, huh? Dumbasses is all they are! When they’ve disarmed the lawful the lawless rule this country…if they don’t already!

  • WhiteFalcon1

    I went back over to slate and suggested they 1st went after the minorities who prey on each other and everyone else, 1st, rather than law abiding folks who haven’t done a thing to warrant their weapons being taken! I sincerely doubt my comment will even make it through their “moderators”….

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    David Gregory opposes armed security at your children’s school but sends his kids to Sidwell Friends where there are 11 armed security guards employed by the school itself, not counting whatever Secret Service agents are needed. Gregory doesn’t engage in this hypocrisy because he’s deliberately and consciously engaging in hypocrisy for its own sake, but he does it because he literally thinks that he’s better than the rest of us, ergo his children are better than our children. (Even though I thought the concept of “better” parents breeding “better” children was an example of “discredited Nazi eugenics.”)

    Michael Bloomberg doesn’t go to other states and complain about Stand-Your-Ground then defends his city’s own Stop-and-Frisk to the last because he cares about you. He does it because he hates you, and only cares about his own Top 0.01% cronies who are kept safe by SAF. In fact, if an entire deep south state like Mississippi adopted Stop and Frisk, Bloomberg would work up a rationale to oppose them doing it, while keeping up his defense of it, and the “hypocrisy” wouldn’t bother him at all for 0.01 second.

    That’s because elitist hypocrisy isn’t hypocrisy, it’s self-perpetuation.

    • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

      11 security guards, and I believe they are trying to hire a 12th.

  • Aelfgar

    If the US government attempts to disarm the populace it will be the beginning of the 2nd American Revolution, I hope it happens.

  • potato78

    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Some of the police officers who responded to the elementary school shooting in Newtown
    are so traumatized they haven’t been working, but they have to use sick
    time and could soon be at risk of going without a paycheck, a union
    official said Wednesday.

    http://news.yahoo.com/police-union-seeks-more-help-newtown-officers-184614407.html

    On this issue of gun control, there is no freedom speech. Control all weapons in USA.

  • potato78

    Did TV Anchor Violate Gun Law?

    Where is the Freedom Speech?

    Washington police are investigating whether NBC’s David Gregory broke the law by holding up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine on Sunday’s Meet the Press despite being denied permission by police to bring the weaponry on the show.

    FREEDOM SPEECH is relative speech.

    http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigating-whether-nbcs-gregory-violated-gun-170426968–abc-news-politics.html

  • potato78

    GOP shows signs of bending after election defeat

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — For years, Republicans
    have adhered fiercely to their bedrock conservative principles,
    resisting Democratic calls for tax hikes, comprehensive immigration
    reform and gun control. Now, seven weeks after an electoral drubbing,
    some party leaders and rank-and-file alike are signaling a willingness
    to bend on all three issues.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gop-shows-signs-bending-election-defeat-175926964–election.html

    Gun Control is inevitable!

    Do you believe the progression?

  • http://www.facebook.com/tardola.anthony Tardola Anthony

    True Black gangbangers have commited shooting crimes, also, i as you all , am opposed to gun control. However, name the last time a Black or other non-white went into an elementary school and killed children in grade levels kindergarten to fifth grade? BTW, it was a hispanic teacher ,Victoria Soto, who put her life on the line to protect those defenseless caucasian children. It looks like you people need to protect yourselves with your children from your own kind, doesn’t it!?!

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      As a public service to your mental health and stability, commit this to memory:

      http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/03/school-shootings-and-white-people.html

    • alex

      You people aren’t very smart, are you? You don’t know the difference between the outliers and the rest of the sample.
      You can talk about white murderers all day long. White neighborhoods and schools are still safer.
      Victoria Soto looks like like White Hispanic to me.
      We need protect ourselves from Hispanic immigration, legal and illegal.

      • Joseph

        The press are doing all they can to make another minority hero. Her father is Puerto-Rican.

        Just imagine making PR a state with 4 million more (or whatever) semi-literate “natural Republicans” to vote yet more Latinos into the country

    • Joseph

      Yes there is violence inherent in all, NO race immune but statistically, even in predominantly white areas we are *still* more likely to be assaulted, even murdered, by a black or Latino.

      Perhaps not in schools but blacks kill *their own children* at 3x the rate of whites:

      2005 (most recent year avail. per 100,000 pop.) Bureau of Justice stats. Children < 5

      2.2 White
      6.6 Black
      0.7 Other

      ***************************************************************

      Note: (Whites are 78% of pop. Blacks 13% from US Census Bureau)

      Overall stats.Homicide Type by Race, (most recent comipilation, 1976-2005) Bureau of Justice stats.

      All homicides victims %
      50.9% White
      46.9% Black
      2.1% Other

      All homicides offenders %
      45.8% White
      52.2% Black
      2.0% Other

      So, you see, we have about 7x the statistical suspicion index for any random black compared with any random white of same sex. This is why stereotypes exist; it's a genetic matter of survival.

    • Svigor

      I think you should amend your comment from the form “when was the last time a black tree fell in the forest?” to, “when was the last time a tree fell in the forest, and the media heard it?”

      The media is selective about which stories it reports. The American media has shown a long-term pattern of sweeping non-white (and especially black) crime under the rug, while showcasing white crime.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tardola.anthony Tardola Anthony

        To Svigor and the rest of you W.N. types: Before you talk about ” black or any other different color” crime , you better look at your own backyard for it’s quite filthy. No disrespect intended. Next, you’ll talk about how your racial group is going the path of the Dinosaurs or Dodo birds. Well, it seems that your own kind is going to push for your people’s demise. Think on that for awhile please. Happy New Year!!

        • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

          We White people aren’t allowed to clean up our backyards until we’ve fully exhausted ourselves building and having to pay to clean up yours.

          • http://www.facebook.com/tardola.anthony Tardola Anthony

            To Celestial Time: Well, please forgive me for saying this but if ,historically, your people wouldn’t of interfered with my people, then you would have to use your “precious resources” to “clean” my backyard, now would you have? Something for you and your ilk to ponder. Have a good day now!!

          • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

            If I’m supposed to be shackled to historical absolutes, then might I add that if your people were a little faster and a lot smarter, then you might not have been caught and would still be living a quaint Stone Age existence in Africa.

            I don’t need to tie your existence or actions to some distant history that you/I have no way of having any first-hand knowledge. I can walk out of my house and see your people and their destruction with my own eyes. So can you. In fact, even though I might be separated by thousands of miles from another honest human with visual capabilities, we can both see the same type of violent behaviors and destruction that seem to happen when blacks and civilization mix.

            You need to keep in mind that it’s you black people that seem to want to keep the evil White man as close to you as possible. Why is it that the pro-White people want to desperately get away from black people, but black people seem to see that as some kind of radical action that threatens their existence. Ponder that and let me know why that seems to be the case.

  • potato78

    For the coming year, sell all your gun manufacture stocks!

    Fiscal Cliff Agreement will be reached before new year.

    Happy New Year! White Gun Control Freaks.

  • SLCain

    So the communist troll, John Engelman gets to spew his vile propaganda at will, and my posts are deleted? What exactly is the point of American Renaissance. Do you endorse the positions of this provacateur? You want socialism, race-replacement, and the trampling of your traditional liberties as Americans? If so, then AR is no better than the milquetoast republicans who will not even take their own side in an argument, and willingly serve as doormats for their sworn enemies whom they fondly imagine are “collegues”.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Moderator

      We don’t need to sink to that level of invective, to call people “communist trolls.” Build a better mousetrap, or in this case, come up with a better argument, and that usually winds up carrying the day.

      • Joseph

        I can dig that. Besides which, we can just “flip through the channel” and move to the next post.

        • SLCain

          True, but a lot of people are taken in. If we wish to influence people – and I assume that is the goal of many people here – then it is presumably worthwhile to dispel the positive impressions that someone may have about someone who is – essentially – an enemy of our cause.

          Also, a lot of people view this forum as some kind of genteel debating society. The results of the last election should make it obvious to us that the stakes in politics are frightenlingly high. And it is, I believe, wrongheaded to assume that our enemies would be as fair with us as we would be with them. They would not be so. I believe in treating political enemies as what they are – enemies.

          • Joseph

            Alas, the day of facts, figures, and reason are being eclipsed by screeching. I often think that these spokespeople for gun owners ought to just employ the tactics of the left and start calling opponents child murderers and rapist enablers because everytime they go on TV and calmly present their case they are yelled over by the likes of Piers Morgan et.al. so I guess that is what the audience can understand.

            I just don’t like that approach at all, but- something has to change, I admit.

          • SLCain

            I’m all for facts and figures. But many people use the outward forms of civil discourse to dissemble, lie, and – as you pointed out – simply shout down their opponents.

            We are indeed in a new age. The only thing stupider than bringing a knife to a gun fight is bringing a copy of Roberts Rules of Order.

          • JohnEngelman

            Years ago I realized that if your only contact with a point of view comes from rebuttals of that point of view, you will be at a real disadvantage if you go up against someone who really thinks that way.

            I was drawn to American Renaissance by reading Jared Taylor’s “The Color of Crime.”

            http://www.colorofcrime.com/

            Actually, I read Tim Wise’s “The Color of Deception” first.

            http://www.timwise.org/2004/11/race-crime-and-sloppy-social-science/

            This is an effort to refute “The Color of Crime.” it was so poorly reasoned, that I thought “The Color of Crime” was the better argument. I was right.

            I agree with Jared Taylor almost entirely on basic reality perceptions. We may differ somewhat on likes and dislikes.

          • JohnEngelman

            American Renaissance can be a place people like you come to blow off steam, or it can advance political causes that have a chance of winning. It cannot be both.

            An individual who is undecided on issues like third world immigration, affirmative action, how to reduce the crime rate, the reasons for the race gap in academic performance and so on is likely to be repelled by those whose arguments are full of personal insults, and other appeals to emotion.

            A civil, fact based and logical augment is more likely to be persuasive.

          • SLCain

            Political causes are not advanced by engaging in genteel civil debates with someone who is an inveterate enemy of one’s interests. You are a socialist, you are hostile to the free exercise of our Constitutional rights, and you are an apologist for anti-white causes. You are my enemy, as far as I’m concerned. I do not wish to persuade you of your folly.

          • JohnEngelman

            SLCain,

            I am not on your side. I would be ashamed of any association with you. Even posting on the same website as you do is mildly embarrassing. I persist because of my admiration for Jared Taylor, and many he admires, such as Professor J. Philippe Rushton.

            The moderators here perform useful acts of American Renaissance hygiene every time they delete one of your posts.

          • SLCain

            “Even posting on the same website as you do is mildly embarrassing”

            Then leave, you piece of garbage.

      • Svigor

        I don’t see any “sinking” involved in calling a spade a spade. The particulars I leave to you, of course, as I do not intend to comment on them.

        I do see a “sinking” involved in allowing the intellectual equivalent of a homeless man donning a tin foil hat into city hall to address the proceedings.

        • http://www.amren.com/ Moderator

          Point of order, you per se can’t leave me per se any particulars. Unless Jared Taylor is posting under the screen name Svigor, and I somehow doubt that.

    • Joseph

      Ignore. I doubt that many converts are made by reading anything either way. Use it to sharpen your own edge if nothing else.

    • Larry

      you haven’t traveled much have you? I support the AR because whites do not have an outlet to vent their frustrations. The press and media have banned free press for whites. tihs country is becoming an Obama dream ran by lazy, unqualified, socialists with the goal of punishing those that have struggled to get an education to be successful and anyone that isn’t ignorant enough to buy obama’s extreme stupidity.
      He has made it impossible for retirees to live off of the savings they have accumulated afer a life of working with bank interest way below 1 percent. He has taken the “respect” for the Commander in Chief out of the military. He has taken our leadership to a subserviant level and wasted my tax dollars on stupid bail-outs, cash for clukers, stupid loans, fucked up forclosure laws protecting those that lied and cheated to get mortgages,and the list goes on.
      Arab nations are at war, Iran and north Korea are playing games with us, unemployment in the US is going up and job needs are outpacing job openings like never in our lifetime, new small businesses where he campaigned and praised are now out out of business, the education system stinks and the only remedy he has is “More” money. With all of these issues, the idiot, Obama goes to minnesota to talk about guns. He is President, he should focus on foreign policy. Unfortunately, he isn’t qualified. Although I am not nor would I be a Republican, I thank god for them as the democrats consist of overpaid, out of touch, unrealistic ideologist, crooks, sissy men and manly women. Imagine obama and his dummies running the country without the Repubs. supervising and controlling.

  • Evette

    Folks, you are all missing the real issue. Minorities are not the problem. It is our fellow whites.

    • Joseph

      Yes, elitist white collectivists are then enablers but without a huge black/brown/yellow contingent, most whaites oppose more restrictions on weapons and a host of other things that would go no where without the support of these stooge groups.

    • Larry

      Wow! white morons do exist. would you care to explain 16,000 annual killings by blacks?

  • potato78

    “The more guns people have, the less life expectancy is” is true or not?

    http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-asian-american

    • Svigor

      I don’t accept statistics that haven’t been corrected for race. E.g., “the more blackness people have, the less (good stuff here) presents itself” has so often proven true that correcting for race is now obviously due diligence.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tardola.anthony Tardola Anthony

        To Svigor and Cronies: You’ll need to end this silly race/genetic nonsense in general. For it’s getting you people nowhere. The real problems here is lack of good education, jobs, opportunities, the insane war on drugs, no respect for life, and an overall decay in morality. That’s the issues our society needs to deal with. your “high iq” should tell you this. Now, as stated earlie, i’m, definitely, against gun control in any form. Gun control leads to outright tyranny. This is suppose to be a constitutional republic with liberties. Therefore, this gov. should have no reason to disarm or fear its’ citizens. BTW, the average Swiss citizen is armed and 12% of their pop. is immigrants,yet, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. In addition, they have a peaceful and open society. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ This is just food for thought. Again Happy New Year.
        P.S.Everybody here please re-evaluate your views in the next upcoming year. We can’t live in the past. Look where the FSU is at now. That can be our future but 3 times worse. Farewell!!

        • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

          To Svigor and Cronies: You’ll need to end this silly race/genetic
          nonsense in general. For it’s getting you people nowhere. The real
          problems here is lack of good education, jobs, opportunities, the insane
          war on drugs, no respect for life, and an overall decay in morality

          Svigor and his “cronies” (I guess that would include me) are crazy enough to believe that the former “nonsense” is a fundamental underlying cause of the latter. You would have to include the person of Barack H. Obama II as a member of the Svigor Crony Club:

          http://countenance.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/president-obama-admits-its-not-that-poverty-cause-crime-its-that-crime-causes-poverty/

          As for that Time article, it’s the same kind of race-denying nonsense that the NRA and most of the official American 2nd Amendment political culture is famous for. Most Swiss “immigrants” are other white people, and there are exceedingly few blacks among what few non-white immigrants there are. Interestingly, there are some New World Hispanics. The kind of non-whites you want to stay away from can’t handle the altitude: Mountains in temperate regions of the world are more an SWPL thing. Ergo Switzerland is a whitopia that, if it were in the United States and not politically connected, the Justice Department would be seeking to make more “vibrant.” Interestingly, before mountains and skiing became a cool activity for rich people, what is now considered Switzerland had a West Virginia style reputation.

        • Larry

          Yes, the stimming problem is: poor education (laziness and non-parental involvement; job opportunities (shitty attitudes, lack of apparent motivation and baggy pants, no qualifications; drugs (individual choice); and decay in morality (a welfare system that perpetuates illigitamacy,and disease.) Black leaders are self-serving, racist morons mostly that do nothing to curtail the aforementioned. There are no white communities I have ever seen that are unsafe for blacks to transit and i have lived all over the US. and 6 foreign countries. The oposite is true for whites. Most black neighborhoods require vigilance for whites that transit at night. There are wackos in all races. but the issue is protecting our homes.
          I live in a bedroom community of a large city. 95% of the residents are white. The rest are Asian or Hispanic. All home invasions, bank roberies, sexual assaults, major drug operations, and other serious crimes have been from blacks.
          In regards to Switzerland, it is a small country of less than 7 million residents. Less than one percent of the population is black. The majority of immigrants are Italian, German, Croatian, french, Turkey and other European countries. It is nonsensical to compare with the US. I am pretty sure that Oregon (about the same population as switzerland) would also have one of the lowest crime rates in the world if it were a country.
          I like nice people regardless of color. I am cautious, not fearful, around blacks as we are as different as night and day and it is certainly more likely that if a problem occurs, I wouldn’t be the instigator. I am tired of whites being blamed for black shortcomings. Only ignorant liberals fall for their “Oh us poorly treated ex slave bS.”
          Live in my community, assimulate. It isn’t our job or obligation to change to placate others.

    • JohnEngelman

      The relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate is less obvious than partisans on either side of the argument care to admit. This is the most Important relationship between crime and any other single factor:

      “The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.”

      - Jared Taylor and “The Color of Crime.”
      http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

      That is true internationally as well as nationally.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

  • Michael_C_Scott

    I still miss my old firearms collection, even though I made an electromagnetic coilgun once I was off federal probation. Since it’s not legally a firearm, I can have it, and since it isn’t legally a firearm, it also isn’t legally a machinegun. The limit to muzzle velocity with a coilgun seems to be dominated by relaxation of the field inside the projectile (surplus steel flechettes). Feed is by a rotary claw turned by an electric motor that strips the flechettes from a detachable magazine. Power is supplied from a pair of sodium-sulfur bus batteries carried on an ALICE pack frame, and run through a Faraday wheel. I don’t need to explain why I wanted it.

    I used to like military-style semi-autos quite a lot, but I preferred the first generation of “battle rifles” firing the full-power rifle rounds, instead of the mediocre “assault” cartridges the morons in the MSM continually refer to as “high-powered”: the G-43, the SVT-40, the FN-49, the Hakim, the M-14, and the FN-FAL.

  • wayne

    America is no longer a Republic in that laws do not limit government. America is a democracy, ruled by whatever the ignorant mob can be excited toward. The Constitution will not protect the rights of our children, same as it did not protect ours. There is nothing magic or sacred about it. It was a failure, worse yet, it has become but a tool to bludgeon the very people it was meant to protect. Furthermore, the Constitution never won us or granted us one single liberty. People nowadays talk as if it did, and ignore the real source of our freedom and prosperity– namely the sacrifice, toil, wisdom and bloodshed of White men. The proof is in the pudding. Immigrants have come by the millions from the lands inherited from their fathers to the land our white fathers built for us. They did not come to live in wigwams, dance around totem poles, and eat buffalo. They came for the improvements our white forefathers put here, and the society they built. End of story.

  • wayne

    I concur with J.Englemann about America being a democracy (whether meant to be or not), and the fact that the Constitution can all be changed is self- evident, it already has been. America is not really federal any more either, according to the meaning of the word “federal” in the 18th century.
    However, he is wrong about the difference between republic and democracy and I recommend anyone who things the two are synonymous to read the Federalist and Anti- Federalist Papers.
    In a nutshell, a Republic enshrines Natural Rights as inviolable, never brought to vote, in a democracy there is no such off- limits areas. Whatever the mob wants, the mob gets. Knowing human nature, this also means rule by popular emotion, not reasoned logic. Those who run the media, run the mob.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      Yes, but the same Constitution that recognizes the right of my friends to own guns also recognizes your right to life. Which way do you want it?

      • Wayne

        One person’ s possession of a gun does not infringe upon another’ s right to life unless by means of a crime. In some situations possession of a firearm can protect your right to life. It’ s that simple and I can’ t believe I have to explain this.

      • Wayne

        Sorry, MCS, I misread your post and have a hair trigger from arguing with leftists. What I’ m saying is, the Constitution has failed. Proposition nations don’ t work, it’ s time whites begin to trust in one another over a piece of paper than can and probably will become totally meaningless. This country was built of, for, and by whites. Our freedoms come from them, not an old piece of parchment long bereft of original intent.

  • Lazare

    It is interesting to note that the primary people who push gun control live in gated, guarded, all white suburban communities.

  • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.mahoney.37 Christopher Mahoney

    It is very frustrating for the Left that white people are still allowed to vote and speak freely, given their impending demographic doom. They have not yet discovered a way to hasten the process. As Stalin said, “Obsolete classes do not liquidate themselves voluntarily”.

  • http://twitter.com/AFreespeechzone A Freespeechzone

    Hmmm, what about the minority gangs, who are armed to the T, more often than not with ILLEGAL firearms? Will Obama go after them FIRST?

    You know damned well he won’t…LITTLE is done to disarm the true criminals in society; they want to disarm the LEGAL firearms owners who terrorize or victimize no one.

    Defy any and all attempts to steal OUR Second Amendment rights–en mass, WE outnumber ‘them’ by millions and millions. Time to leverage that advantage AGAINST the gun grabbers.

  • Larry

    Blacks murder 16,000 people on the average annually. How is it possible that the government and media have made murder an issue only since the horrible incident in Connecticut done by one wacko white person? Don’t blacks understand how their behavior isolates their race from all others? Or, is it part of the governmental plan to downgrade white overall behavior to that of black society just like downgrading all public (Government) education to black ghetto level so blacks can escape reality and feel good about themselves and hate other races even more??

  • Gunrunner1

    Brilliant! Gregory’s essay called “A memo to White Conservatives” was what brought me to the White Nationalist movement. After years of working and voting, I realized that my carefully researched vote is useless, when the party in power simply promises more Obamaphones, more programs, more stuff, more amnesty or whatever to purchase votes against the indigenous population. We are in the last stages of a Democracy with the same problems as Athens, Rome, Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union.

    The Government has run out of other peoples money.

    As I write this, the Fed is purchasing it own bonds at a rate of 80 billion a month, a joke nearly as funny as the idea of printing a coin with “1 trillion dollars” printed on it and “depositing” it in the treasury.

    This observation:

    “The system is a model of what Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny,” as the government mysteriously loses tens of thousands of its own firearms even as it denies permits to law abiding citizens. If a white citizen does use a firearm to defend his life against a black, he is often punished.” is what we are seeing in the Zimmerman trial. Any White who resists a “diversity” attack and wins might get unfairly prosecuted. The beauty is the randomness. While 99.99% of people will not be targeted, the one that is targeted will be destroyed. Zimmerman has every black looking for him even if he is found justified. The Black Panthers are hardly going to rescind their fatwa and say “Oh Nevermind!”, nor do they fear Holder going after the Panther organization. Zimmerman will never be a safe man again. Yet Whites know that the gun is the only tool available to stop a negro attacker.
    This would not be happening if Whites had a Country of our Own.