Bill Cosby, the Zimmerman case, and guns
Look, I want to give Bill Cosby his props. He’s been speaking up courageously for years on the problems within the black community, and he’s gotten a lot of flak for it. It can’t have been easy for him.
Here are some excerpts from the address Cosby gave to the NAACP in 2004 on the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. You may have heard of Cosby’s speech because it got a lot of press, and evoked a lot of backlash. But have you ever read it? The guy did not pull his punches:
Now, look, I’m telling you. It’s not what they’re doing to us. It’s what we’re not doing. 50 percent drop out. Look, we’re raising our own ingrown immigrants. These people are fighting hard to be ignorant. There’s no English being spoken, and they’re walking and they’re angry. Oh God, they’re angry and they have pistols and they shoot and they do stupid things. And after they kill somebody, they don’t have a plan. Just murder somebody. Boom. Over what? A pizza?…
Five or six different children — same woman, eight, ten different husbands or whatever. Pretty soon you’re going to have to have DNA cards so you can tell who you’re making love to. You don’t who this is. It might be your grandmother. I’m telling you, they’re young enough. Hey, you have a baby when you’re twelve. Your baby turns thirteen and has a baby, how old are you? Huh? Grandmother…
I’m telling you Christians, what’s wrong with you? Why can’t you hit the streets? Why can’t you clean it out yourselves? It’s our time now, ladies and gentlemen. It is our time. And I’ve got good news for you. It’s not about money. It’s about you doing something ordinarily that we do — get in somebody else’s business. It’s time for you to not accept the language that these people are speaking, which will take them nowhere. What the hell good is Brown v. Board of Education if nobody wants it?
It’s worth reading the whole thing, but that’s the basic idea.
So one might think that Cosby would have something insightful to say about the Zimmerman/Martin case. And in a sense he does. In this interview, he downplayed the possible role of racism in the killing, which is a valuable message. He also said not to trust the media reports on these things because they tend to distort them. True enough. In addition, he said the prosecution failed to prove its case; can’t argue with that assessment, either. But Cosby had the following curious things to say on the self-defense and firearm possession aspects of the case [emphasis mine]:
I know that if you have a gun, it changes your whole feeling about what you can tell people, about how people better do what you say. Your mind can turn in such a way that you have a sense of control and power. I see a thing and so forth and so on [unintelligible] OK just stay where you are and don’t, but I got a gun.
Let’s not go into a racial discussion unless we really have something there. But we do know that he [Zimmerman] had a gun. And we do know that the Florida state law says you have a right to defend yourself, that means both people. So you have a gun and you come up to me and I don’t have a gun, but then you show me your gun and I become frightened and according to the State of Florida, I have a right to defend myself. According to the State of Florida, the person with the gun has the right to defend him or herself. I mean this is getting out of line.
What on earth does the fact situation Cosby describes have to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case, except in Cosby’s imagination? Does Cosby think that Zimmerman walked up to Martin and flashed a gun, and Martin “became frightened”? If so, why did Zimmerman then wait all that time while his head was being bashed on the pavement, screaming at the top of his lungs for help, before using that gun on Martin?
What’s more, as little as Cosby seems to know about the evidence in the Zimmerman case of how the confrontation went down, he unfortunately seems to know even less about the responsibilities and attitudes of most legal concealed carriers in general. For that, ask attorney Andrew Branca, who is not directly addressing Cosby’s statements in the following, but might as well be:
AB: I’d say the biggest misconception is that if you’re carrying a gun you get to take shit from fewer people. The reality is exactly opposite. When you’re carrying a gun you have to take shit from everybody. Except, of course, the guy actually trying to kill you. You can shoot him. That’s the tradeoff. The gun gives you the practical means to end the life of anybody in your immediate vicinity. In exchange for that power it is your moral and legal responsibility to conduct yourself in such a way as to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. The last thing you want to do if you’re carrying is to be the one who even inadvertently escalates a non-deadly encounter to a deadly one. Confronting the drunk loudmouth who’s making a scene at the table next to you in a restaurant, for example, may be seen as a potentially very bad idea if you think a few steps down the line. Best to just let it go, and just go, leave. One of my primary tactical rules of self-defense is to vacate the area at the first sign of a red flag. Let the bad stuff go down while you’re safely somewhere else.
There’s every indication that Zimmerman tried to do just that and did not “confront” Martin, but that “the bad stuff” came to get him anyway. And yet Cosby’s point of view and his state of ignorance on the case is mild compared to that of so many people who continue to opine about it. You know the drill: Zimmerman the racist; Zimmerman followed Martin; Zimmerman confronted Martin.
It might have been understandable for many people to believe these things for the first few weeks after the killing. But in the meantime there’s been a trial here. With evidence, yet. And anyone who paid attention to the trial, anyone who listened to the recording of Zimmerman’s non-emergency call, anyone who looked at the evidence, should know better.
But this case has something for everyone, and it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Want to rail against the racism of white people? Want to take on Stand Your Ground? Want to campaign for more gun control? Then talk about this case.
Cosby’s message is about gun control, an issue about which he feels strongly. From the start of the Zimmerman case, long before the trial, he saw it as an issue about guns and made it clear he didn’t think Zimmerman should have been carrying one. Cosby has a reason to feel so strongly about guns (he’s not against possessing one in the home, by the way): his only son was shot and killed in 1997 while changing a tire, by a man who was attempting to rob him.
The man who killed Ennis Cosby was a criminal, a Ukrainian immigrant 18 years of age named Mikhail Markhasev who had come here with his mother at the age of nine. Although I’ve been unable to ascertain whether he had a concealed carry permit for the gun he used to kill Ennis Cosby, it is nearly impossible to believe that he did. Not only his age but his background (he was a gang member and had spent six months in a correctional facility after having attacked two African-American men at a gas station with a knife) argues against it. So what gun law would have stopped him, and what concealed carry ban would have changed anything? The concealed carry laws in California, where the crime took place, are among the strictest in the nation, by the way.
It’s not at all difficult to understand why Bill Cosby might have a special reason to want to keep guns away from violent criminals. We all would like to do that, but we have yet to figure out a way to accomplish it. George Zimmerman was not a criminal, however, and the fact situation of the Martin killing bears no resemblance to that of the Ennis Cosby murder. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that, if Zimmerman had not had a gun with him that night, it would have been Zimmerman who would have ended up either gravely injured (brain damage) or even dead.
I wonder how much people like Cosby (and even Juan Williams, who has written about the race baiters and black urban “culture,” ) are afraid to loose any audience they might have by not giving some voice to the convential “wisdom” of blacks. After all, no blacks listen to Clarece Thomas. OTOH, maybe Cosby only listens to the MSM.
The observations of Mr. Branca raise an issue about concealed carry and the effect of the Zimmerman case. Future cases of self defense outside the home could pivot on the race of the parties involved. We know whose side the Justice Department is on. It may be more risky to carry now than before the case.
A topic of discussion has been about the Right’s demonstrated incompetence at activism in the never ending, never pausing Marxist game, the only game there is.
Specifically, the Right often seems tardy and helpless in establishing its own narrative frame for controversies like the Zimmerman controversy.
The narrative motif for the Right in the Zimmerman controversy ought to be the ethic of self-help, help-your-neighbor, and protecting one’s community that’s both traditional and essential for the American working middle-class.
It seems beyond the Right’s activist capability, though, which seems limited to reacting to the Left or remaining passive for fear of Marxist PC-racist enforcement.
Here’s a proposal.
Narrow it down to an incisive method that should be within the Right’s limited activist capability.
Rather than aiming for a narrative that’s beyond the Right’s activist capability, focus instead on acting as a watchdog on the factual premises. Aggressively, repetitively, and loudly push the corrections on the facts in the Zimmerman controversy and relentlessly correct any commentary that uses false or twisted premises.
It should be effective because the Left’s narrative myths normally rely on one or more pivotal misrepresentations in their premises. And simple corrections of facts that undermine the Left’s narrative should be easy enough to grasp for short attention spans.
Disallowing the Left the falsified cornerstones of their narrative pushes them into a damage control mode that is vulnerable.
For example, recall Mitsu’s stubbornness about characterizing the merits of the case as opinions. He then would assign his opinions a value of “certainty” in order to anchor his narrative.
The Left needs their lies to hold up their narrative. It’s an exploitable vulnerability. But it won’t exploit itself.
Focus on the facts. Be an anal retentive, stubborn, and, most importantly, loud and unignorable stickler in correcting Cosby’s and others’ factual premises. Compel them to react to the corrections and we’ll start seeing movement in the right direction.
Achieve that movement and more options will be opened for shaping the social-political discourse.
You might be interested in the Kates and Mauser study on banning firearms. Professor Kates did a number on studies on criminals and firearms. He concluded that there are always plenty of firearms for criminals.
http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/Kates-Mauser.pdf
Eric, I think everything you said above about the Right’s “incompetence at activism” is on the mark. But you haven’t addressed the question of how the Right can grab a spot on the media bully pulpit that’s now just about fully occupied by the Left. Any suggestions?
Dr. Cosby’s blubbering on about Stand-Your-Ground may — *may* — be rooted in a strategy. Assuming for a second that Cosby really is acquainted with the facts of the Zimmerman case [questionable, but do bear with me s’il vous plait], . . .
it may come down to needing to cling to some street cred. If Cosby needs to establish his bona fides while doling out some sorely needed truth about his people, so be it. Otherwise, he’s little more than a Clarence Thomas or a Thomas Sowell or a Walter Williams to them [cf. expat, 2:43 pm].
I hope that’s the explanation, and not Cosby actually buying into the enemedia’s vile agitprop.
Bill Cosby spoke some truth to the race hustlers 9 years ago and was savaged for it. He hasn’t had a word of criticism for the racial grievance industry since. It is past time to stop congratulating him for a 9 year old speech followed by crickets chirping.
I understand Cosby’s preoccupation with gun control. When your son has been killed with a gun, your mind wants to find something, some way, anything to prevent such a thing ever happening to other children. No matter what the stage of your grief, you will keep coming back to how and why your child died. At least the Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD) (who are analogous to those who lost a child to a shooting by a criminal) are aiming at the right target – the drunk drivers, not the cars. They keep trying to get the drunks off the road, (And they have had some success) but human nature and a free society militate against total success. Cosby and all those who are seeking gun control should instead be seeking to reduce the number of criminals, not the number of legally owned guns. Unfortunately for the mothers of MADD and father’s of son’s killed by lawless people with guns, their quest to prevent the deaths of other children is going to be frustrating because such things cannot be stopped completely in a free society. But they will keep trying because it helps them deal with their grief.
I too give Bill Cosby his props, he appears to be a fine human being. None of that however makes him right in this instance.
As for attorney Branca’s advice, “One of my primary tactical rules of self-defense is to vacate the area at the first sign of a red flag. Let the bad stuff go down while you’re safely somewhere else.” never have I heard a more forthright, unrepentant expression of moral cowardice. According to him, when ‘bad stuff’ happens, he’s looking out for number one. Render aid and assistance? Act in defense of violence targeted at the aged, women and helpless children? Fogetaboutit…
Let the cops handle it and if they’re minutes away and seconds count, then that’s just too bad and it sucks to be them…
That’s not civilized behavior, that’s survival of the fittest.
}}} it would have been Zimmerman who would have ended up either gravely injured (brain damage) or even dead.
Exactly. But that’s ok, it would only have been just another case of a “white” (well, kinda-sorta-almost) guy getting killed by a black thug… And that happens all the time with nary a word said by anyone.
}}} That’s not civilized behavior, that’s survival of the fittest.
Geoffrey, that’s not the way I read it. I thought it was more “don’t go messing into minor business where deadly force is not reasonably asked for”… like a drunk spouting off — even if he’s starting a fight, don’t be the one he starts it with… especially if there are enough people around to keep him from getting deadly about it… and so on.
“Pick your fights carefully” — because if you have to draw your gun you opened a can of worms for yourself, right or wrong.
IGotBupkis,
Perhaps you’re right.
It seems obvious to me that Cosby has never actually carried a gun himself. I have and sometimes, do, having a Virginia concealed carry permit (open carry being legal here without a permit).
In my experience, Andrew Branca has it exactly right.
Now maybe iit does gives some people a sense of power, that “people better do what you say,” but not me, or anyone I know. It makes me very polite, with the sense that I want to avoid any and all arguments (this especially if I am open carrying) lest someone start to think just that about me.
I’ve had my gun buddies say the same, that it makes them want to avoid confrontation more than ever.
Geoffrey:
Branca has written a book about self-defense laws.
He was saying that an armed person needs to go out of his way to avoid conflicts which could escalate to the point where he has to use his gun. I think he may be right.
It sort of underlines the old Heinlein quote, “An armed society is a polite society.”
I’m a gun guy, but “An armed society is a polite society” just isn’t really true. Some are and some most certainly aren’t. See Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, the Kurdistan regions, much of Africa….
rickl,
Yes, he was saying “that an armed person needs to go out of his way to avoid conflicts which could escalate to the point where he has to use his gun.” And I agree that he’s right…about that.
But…he also said, “Let the bad stuff go down while you’re safely somewhere else.” implicit to that statement is an unwillingness to defend women and children. After all, he’ll be ‘somewhere else’ when the ‘bad stuff’ goes down.
Heinlein also said, “All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus, adornment, luxury, and folly, which can and must be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial* survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.”
Pray tell, how exactly is Branca going to be in a position to protect pregnant women and children, (if it’s needed) should the ‘bad stuff’ go down while he’s “safely somewhere else”?
* Heinlein meant the human race, not any particular ‘race’.
In Branca’s defense, so to speak, I could say that getting involved in non-deadly trouble which leads to deadly trouble after, whether or not because, you got involved is going to be a problem for you if you end up shooting.
Hanging around watching might be more acceptable. Or if you come on it as it’s happening, that would be different.
Branca has said that there is no such thing as a good shoot that leaves you without legal trouble no matter how good. Criminal or civil.
J.J.: Even MADD is corrupted by the socialist agenda. Nothing escapes the communist attempt to tear down our society from within. With MADD, statistics are corrupted and the solution is more police power, basically, random stops and searches.
The hypocricy is that probably more police are driving drunk and stoned on average than your citizen driver.
But you haven’t addressed the question of how the Right can grab a spot on the media bully pulpit that’s now just about fully occupied by the Left. Any suggestions?
Leave Fox News and start your own media empire? No that’s impossible! cough::glennbeck::cough
We can start by NOT ceding the grounds of the debate to the Left’s twisted notions of how language works. We can recognize that the Left does not use language to communicate what’s on their minds but to manipulate; ergo, we should never respond to the content but rather to the tactic.
When they gratuitously shout RAAAAACIST, instead of trying to defend ourselves against the charge, we can point out that they make the charge not becuse it’s true but because it’s useful. They’re not basing the charge on any evidence, and there’s no way to defend against such a thought-crime, so it’s a truly base person who uses the tactice.
We can refute the corruption of how to interpret analogies. It drives me crazy when someone says “A:B::C:D,” and the Left wigs out about the “comparison” of A to D, when it’s the relationships (the colons) that are being compared, not the items in the comparison.
Jeff Goldstein’s been crying in the wilderness about it for a good decade\; there’s too much for me to outline here and I need to plant some bee balm before it gets dark.
It would be nice if politicians were savvy enough to not take the bait when accused of awfulness, but they’re naturally disposed to try to please everyone. It’s not in their nature (or their skill set, or consciousness) to interpret the tactic over the content.
It’s also extremely hard to combat fascile, bumper-sticker lies with complicated, involved explanations of the truth.
Take back education, first. Teach classical rhetoric and how to recognize logical fallacies. Teach the art of reason.
And take your kids to church – any house of worship – as long as it directs the mind and soul toward the divine and away from materialism.
sharpie, point well made. It would seem that no good intentions can’t be corrupted by the burning need of socialists to control the behavior of others.
Also, I’ve got the 1983 stage show “Bill Cosby: Himself” via Netflix.
The dentist routine had me laughing until I cried, even though I’ve heard it often enough.
Timeless comedy, I tells ya. An irreplaceable talent.
Thanks JJ.
But of course we affirm the basic truth that drinking and driving is criminal.
As well as texting and driving, and driving on no sleep, or prescription drugs.
I wonder, all the injury (including the injury on your lower back from just sitting and jiggling and the injury on the neurological system from the stress) from driving might be more than the value.
And if Cosby’s son had been killed by a knife, would he blame the knife and be an advocate for knife control?
More GZ developments, posted at Ace of Spades. This one will really singe your hair.
Juror B29, the lone nonwhite juror, whom ABC announced with a flourish of trumpets “said Zimmerman got away with murder”??? And all the papers, and Drudge, and the networks, picked it up and ran with it like a bloody shirt?
Just one teeny-tiny problem: In the footage that was DELETED, she said she “stands by the jury’s decision,” because it was the law.
Even more: that she didn’t even think the case should have come to trial — she thinks it was a publicity stunt.
ABC PRAVDA “News” deliberately recut the footage to make it look like she was saying he got away with murder.
Here’s the link: and pass it on to those who still believe we have a functioning Fourth Estate in this country.
http://minx.cc/?post=342016
Richard Aubrey,
Good points all. There’s no substitute for common sense and prudence. Only the foolish rush in where angels fear to tread.
That Branca is entirely correct when he observes that “there is no such thing as a good shoot that leaves you without legal trouble no matter how good. Criminal or civil.” is a condemnation of our society’s current lack of moral clarity.
“And if Cosby’s son had been killed by a knife, would he blame the knife and be an advocate for knife control?”
I think we all know the answer to that question. 😉
I have no good words to say about Crosby. I have children, nephews, nieces, and cousins who have faced the possibility of death via the muzzle of a gun or an IED. Fortunately, all have returned home alive. Had any of them perished or been maimed I would not blame bullets or bombs. I would blame their murderers. To state the obvious, guns do not kill people.
“ABC PRAVDA “News” deliberately recut the footage to make it look like she was saying he got away with murder.”
Sounds like Zimmerman has another lawsuit.
Hey, how about a class-action lawsuit against the major media for engaging in fraud, violating the RICO statutes? Any knowledgeable lawyers out there?
dicentra: “Take back education, first. ”
A rather gargantuan ambition. But so is climbing Everest. Every mountain is climbed by putting one foot in front of the other. Even if it is small steps, it is progress. We must be confident that we will eventually reach that goal. If not, we do nothing.
BurkeanMama Says:
July 27th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
This.
I have no use for anybody who advocates gun control in any way, shape, or form. They are ignorant at best, and malevolent at worst.
Either way, they want to leave me helpless in the face of criminals.
And anybody who would cite Zimmerman as an example of “gun violence” is simply detestable.
The wild, wild, west was positively pacific compared to today’s ‘hood — and open carry was a big reason why.
The Dodge City solution of taking away gun belts turned entirely upon the common practice of saloons permitting their patrons to get totally smashed.
Virtually all of the famous shoot outs involved liquor, hence the temperance union.
Think upon it: after the players left Dodge — gun belts loaded — practically no-one shot anyone.
Today’s ‘hood is a shooting gallery because the players are typically high/ drunk/ spinning when the deed is done.
Mr. Martin was, plainly, a drug addict: Rainbow Drank.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rainbow+drank
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dranksta
Even one law against guns is gun control!
Geoffrey
To be fair:
“there is no such thing as a good shoot that leaves you without legal trouble no matter how good. Criminal or civil.”
I said that, hoping to have paraphrased Branca’s views accurately.
I have no idea what goes on in Cosby’s head. I can speculate that the cumulative effect of the cumulative effect eventually can get to the strongest person.
Once he made his famous speech, he was savaged by a large number of people who have megaphones. And I expect he was shunned by them and others.
And he was accused of “victim blaming”, a useful distraction and misrepresentation of what people say.
I have no idea if he had any friends on the right, or even the center, to whom he could look for support.
But eventually, the cumulative effect will get you. You have to be positively a contrarian, actively a contrarian, to hold it off.
Even then….
It helps not to be surrounded as a matter of circumstance by those who are likely to give you a hard time.
Lastly, we don’t know exactly what Cosby was thinking. Perhaps the aptness of his speech was part of his skill with words which exaggerated what he was trying to say. He’s a pro, after all, and it might be that his habit of saying things for effect, and his unconscious skill at it, was part of the package.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Does Cosby think that Zimmerman walked up to Martin and flashed a gun, and Martin “became frightened”?
Cosby should be speaking from his own personal experiences and the experience of his people’s culture. Which, in that case, those with guns do flash them or at least flash the holster (visible armament).
This in some ways mimic civilized deterrence, and prevents some gang shootouts, as it allows one group to save face by backing away from superior strength (but not excessive insults or social status gimpage).
Cosby attempts to reform his own culture and community, but in a lot of ways, that is because he himself is also prey to the misconceptions of the black community over guns and other things. It is this existence of ignorance, that allows the Left to enslave so many at the cost of a few votes, fake or real. It is this ignorance, that sinks their community into perpetual poverty, social dysfunction, and gang violence.
With knowledge comes power. So that even the powerless may change their social status with a little knowledge and time.
People cannot change America with voting, given how long they have ignored the indoctrination and fears of the people.
“See Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, the Kurdistan regions, much of Africa….”
Heinlein’s concept of society is one that the Founding Fathers and the modern Japanese understand and execute. Those are not the societies exemplified in Iraq and Africa, however. Those are barbarian tribal existences based upon eternal gang warfare. It often takes a strong man just to get all the factions to stop murdering each other’s kids. That is their peace and strength. But it is not a society as would be recognized by someone like Heinlein or other proponents of Western concepts of civilization.
The argument against Heinlein, is of course, that there are cultures that think like Obama “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun”. Or the mafia and South Africa concept, “if they harm one of us, we’ll kill and rape a hundred of their clan’s families”.
Whether those are “societies” we should be modeling ourselves after, is a different issue.
Btw, Kurdistan was the most peaceful and secure of all regions of Iraq in 2003 and onwards. There was a reason for that.
Acquiring lethal force has a variety of effects: both on individuals and their greater community culture at large.
1. A person may grow an over inflated confidence and make reckless behavior the norm.
2. A person may grow a more cautious attitude and take care to avoid as much conflict as possible, now that they are not longer driven by the fear of dying so much as the fear of having to kill everyone in the room (now that it is possible).
3. Humans fear what is most likely to happen. When they have no power, what is mostly likely is that they are murdered, tortured to death, raped, or stolen from. Thus the third potential consequence of someone becoming armed with lethal force is that they obtain the role of a warlock, or in the ancient world, a warlord’s military duty to protect his tribe and clan from invaders. Because the most likely consequence after they acquire enough power, is that they are the ones that do the most killing. This devolves into a fear of not killing enough for family and country, or a fear of killing too many people for family and country.
Generally speaking, a man’s first duty is to obtain enough power to protect himself, then he can fulfill the duty of protecting somebody else. Thus whether a person is only adept at lethal force enough to protect himself or if he has mastered it to kill everyone in the entire room, to protect anyone else in the room, is a questionable stat. People grow more lethally competent with experiences and time, but everyone started at about 0. Since modern Western civilization does not promote too much warrior type careers, most people only have enough power to defend themselves. They may be able to defend their family, but certainly few can defend the innocents in the room or the neighbors of the neighborhood.
What you will do, what you can do in a situation is determined by your resource level and whether you as the individual on the front lines, want to commit the resources and risk the consequences. It’s the difference between gambling with your own money and life, and gambling with somebody else’s money and life in a war you chose but they have to fight in.
If the situation is a school shooting, you are given several choices and what you choose, depends a lot on what resources you have available. If you have long ranged lethal force at your disposable, you may terminate the threat or ambush/pin the threat or deter the threat from hunting more civilians (sheep). You can do this while hidden in a good ambush spot, or under cover/concealment, and thus take less risk than the serial killer himself. However, what if you only had melee ranged lethal force, like Miyamoto Musashi’s katanas? Then to do the same thing, you would have to close the gap and that requires skill, resources, and luck. Are you going to risk it? If you fail, what is your family going to do without you? Forget about saving strangers and their kids, what about your kids? Weigh the consequences and depending on your soul/spirit/personality, your choices may differ. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer.
And, of course, if you can’t fight nor do you have lethal force at your disposable, you will readily recognize that you can’t protect yourself, let anyone else. You are then able to choose between 1. running away or 2. confronting the shooter, attempting to talk them down, while your fellows escape out the window. Which, of course, the most likely consequence of 2. is you getting one in the head and one tap in the chest. But like I said, there are no right or wrong choices, only a difference of resources and judgment.
The solution the Left has discovered is that they don’t need to shackle, enslave, or beat down warriors and the people who are competent. They merely have to wait until the next generation is born and indoctrinated to hate obtaining their own power. Instead, if you teach kids their only choice is to save themselves, die, or give power to the All Powerful State, you will win almost all the time. You, being the State.
Reference black community civilians for an example, if you are lacking one.
When I obtained close ranged lethal force resources, my perspective changed. I realized back then that I could kill everyone in the room, if I so chose. With some exceptions, like people escaping and being one person, I could not chase down everyone. Not without an aoe weapon or a long ranged projectile thrower. This change in perspective modifies your resources and promotes a degree of differentiation between your personality and judgment. When before, all you could do was cower, die, submit, or escape, now that person is changed by being granted more options, more resources, more power. Yet they are still the same personality, more or less. The personality merely morphs based upon the stimuli. People can become arrogant, reckless, or evil when given a gun. That is certainly true. They can also become fearsome avengers and defenders as well.
Cosby may be more familiar with the evil personalities, and so is Obama perhaps in it as well. But in terms of the positive differentiation and growth of a person’s personality when armed with more resources, I see it progressing like this.
When a person who wants to fight for justice and wants to destroy evil, is given or acquires enough power, their perspective changes. Pity, mercy, and compassion are the privileges of the strong. While weaklings may have demanded to lynch some people merely because they feared them as criminals and threats to society, the defender with the power to massacre anyone in his line of sight, can be merciful, take pity on the fallen, and grant them compassion. This adjusts a person’s personality via this elevation of perspective. However, power of that sort does not sustain itself by doing nothing, so the former weakling in question must find strong opponents to fight. The paladin must find greater evils to fight in order not to get rusty. Instead of turning that power on his fellow villagers and civilians, he instead attempts to use it against the predators that prey upon the sheep in the village.
Predators deem themselves superior because they select prey, the weaklings, and thus grow strong “hunting humans”. Which are difficult prey to hunt. Paladins and other people who like to hunt down evil for sport, fun, or self-satisfaction, hunt down evil doers for a similar reason. Serial killers, terrorists, baby killers, and what not, are fun to hunt down and difficult to exterminate. In this fashion the community service is done, and personal desires are met.
The challenge is thus, what makes it worth it. It is what allows a person who has power, to always protect those weaker than him and grant them the benefit of mercy and grace. For there are always stronger prey to hunt outside the village. The mere pride of not using one’s power against those who are weaker, is its own deterrent and identity.
A serial killer must hunt alone, most often wise, and does so without the backing of a society or group (with some exceptions). A defender of the people, however, is named a hero for doing the job of massacring lots of folks, but because the villagers support him, he is termed a hero and not a serial or mass murderer. Thus a serial killer must come up with a justification that society deems acceptable if he wishes to be accepted by the people and given power, instead of merely preying upon the weak and leaving before the pitchforks arrive.
In the Left’s Perfect Utopia, the Hero is someone like Obama, or Valerie, or Eric Holder, or some anonymous bisexual, androgynous “State”. It’s one reason why they think they are fighting Republican evil. To most of them, you are evil and bad things that happen to you (IRS, serial killers, black gang orgs) are just what you all deserve for being bad. It’s not a political stance. It’s not a cultural difference of opinion. It is more alike to cults and religious fervour.
One of the natural counter actions to this is a competing ideology or a competing “Hero”. Someone like Sarah Palin or Andrew Breibart, who fights for the people, are an extreme threat to the Left’s narrative. A Hero can’t go around killing whomever he pleases if the villagers stop giving him their support, and instead support this “Imposter” hero called Sarah Palin or some other name of an American patriot. Not everyone can be deemed a hero, nor will the villagers give the license to kill to just anyone. Controlling the people, acquiring their support, is a crucial element of revolutions and guerilla insurgencies.
The power to control resources, is the power to control the human soul, spirit, mind, heart, and body. Those who have been convinced or coerced to give up their resources and power to a single person, will get what guarantee that they will receive something of equal value? Those who have been taught never to seek out the ultimate powers of life and death in this universe, what worth are they to the leader anyways? People could have so much more to offer the community if they were motivated to become more than they were. Not everyone will succeed, but enough will to enrich the village and protect it from predators.
The Left doesn’t have to shoot people to kill them. They can just use the IRS, ATF, TSA, SEIU, and PP to get you. The IRS will bankrupt you. The ATF will find illegal weapons you bought or sold. The TSA will prevent you from leaving. The SEIU will picket your homes, find your kids, and harass everyone you know until they all get together and force you to obey. PP will abort your kids, cleanse the Race, and get rid of people who may be problematic to control, all without a single bullet.
It’s not like “GUNS” are the only power or resource of the people. There are plenty of resources. Who controls all of them, controls human free will in a sense.
Union propaganda and socialization has remade the police force from a civic body based around defending family, community, country (in that order) into a sort of pseudo paramilitary culture that prides itself on “hunting humans” and the “sub humans” called criminals.
The gangs contribute one group of tribes. The police forces another. The civilians in between are thus raided and pillaged by both sides. When Republicans come in from outside and talk to the black civilians about how Republican policies will fix things… an expected reaction is due.
Generally speaking, only police officers can reform other police officers. POs or cops won’t listen to gang bangers, civilians, or “Others” not part of the tribe. However, Leftist unions punish and exile police officers that attempt to reform corruption. Or they are silenced. Or the cops silence themselves because they don’t want to break the “Code” of speaking out against their clan, a traitorous behavior that benefits only criminals and sub humans.
Unions control the resources. Thus they control the soul of the police.
Taxes are one kind of resource, but not the only kind.
Mikhail Markhasev could NOT have had a concealed carry permit. Aside from the facts that California is not a shall issue state and you need to get permission from local law enforcement and California has lots of firearms restrictions, the far bigger issue is this – it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase or be in unsupervised possession of a handgun. This has been Federal law since the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act
It is remarkable how many gun laws there are that no one seems to know about. It has been my observation that those that know the least are usually the ones most loudly demanding more.
Just watched a commercial for ADT Security.
The couple says they’ve got two little reasons [holding babies] to get it and one big reason:
The house next door was broken into.
“Luckily no one was there.”
[picture of ransacked house]
Lucky for who?
I pity the fool comes bustin’ in my house while we’re here.
The system isn’t armed.
Jerry,
Exactly right – also, not only is California a may issue state for CCW permits, whether or not you’ll get it even after dealing with law enforcement varies from county to county.
You could be perfectly sane, pass all checks, classes, and still be denied in say, Santa Clara County, but if you live in a rural county, you’ll get it.
In LA County where the shooting happened it is almost impossible to get a permit. Some of the low population density counties make it easy to get a permit, but you have to live there (and of course an 18 year old couldn’t get one anywhere).
In San Diego I understand you can get a permit (often) if you run your own buisness, on the basis you may be robbed for the cash you will have. It is hard to get a permit in SD for personal defense.
On his very last bus trip, during his journey to Sanford days before, the young Mr. Martin had indeed attempted to acquire an illegal weapon.
George Zimmerman’s 911 calls and police video taping of his on the scene reconstruction of the events provide good contradicted evidence that the hooded Trayvon Martin passed by and observed George Zimmerman as he was seated in his vehicle on conducting a cellphone conversion with the 911 operator about Mr. Martin. Martin stared at Zimmerman as he slowly passed by Zimmerman on the phone seated in the vehicle. Martin had to have
knownsuspected that Zimmerman was on the phone and had called the police. After Zimmerman exited his vehicle there is no evidence that Zimmerman “showed” Martin a gun. Martin however with little doubt observed Zimmerman in possession of a cellphone. I suspect that Martin overheard some of Zimmerman’s conversation with Sanford’s 911 operator.Let’s rework what Bill Cosby says to make it more realistic: – ‘but we do know that he [Zimmerman] had a cellphone. And we do know that the Florida gangsta ethos says you don’t call the cops, that means both people. So you have a cellphone and you call the cops on me and I don’t have a gun, but then I find you alone with your cellphone and not a cop in sight and I become angry and according to my gangsta culture social etiquette I have a right to defend myself …’-
Mr. Zimmerman’s actual offense seems likely not to have been profiling and not to have been stalking but calling the police on 911. Is this not precisely what Bill Cosby seems to suggest Zimmerman should have done? Was Martin engaging in an act of street intimidation communicating in a forceful fashion if you call the cops you can expect a beating?
Bill Cosby’s observations don’t take into account criminal intimidation of unarmed law abiding citizens.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-jose-police/ci_18384442?nstrack=sid:6375457|met:0000300|cat:0|order:23&%2F%3Fsource=dailyme
More of this to come (police layoffs) as the welfare state cannot deliver on pensions, healthcare, and, regarding the current topic, security.
And Obama is pushing the minimum wage issue! I’m sure that’s impressing people in Chicago, especially the dead ones.
I heard the SEIU and TSA are always hiring ex peeps for Enforcement activities.
Jerry said:
“… the far bigger issue is this — it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase or be in unsupervised possession of a handgun. This has been Federal law since the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act …”
That is just not true. You have to be 21 or over to *purchase* a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer but *Federal* law does not prohibit *possession* by those under 21 — supervised or otherwise.
I have rewad so many posts concerning the blogger lovers except this
article is trully a nice paragraph, kep iit up.