SPECIAL REPORT: Black Man With Gun Harms No One
The lamestream media told you:
A man was seen carrying a deadly black high capacity loaded semiautomatic AR-15 assault weapon near president Obama's speech in Phoenix, but was not arrested. Authorities say "it was perfectly legal," leaving observers in shock.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Black Man With Gun Harms No One Black Man With Gun Harms No One
Obama rally unaffected by one man's civil rights
National media has conniptions, interviews Korwin repeatedly seeking comfort, but gets none.
"Why wasn't that man arrested?" they cry?
"Because he didn't do anything."
"No Guns For Negroes" Documentary exonerated, vindicated, available for free viewing.
Page Nine Special -- Black Man With A Gun! Two guns!
The media nationwide has its panties in a knot because a person showed up at an Obama protest bearing arms and wearing a white shirt and tie. Not just any firearm, but what they like to vilify as an "assault" rifle -- an AR-15 typical household single-shot long gun. But to the media, it’s a menacing black gun. And it was worn by a black man, a fact they tried to hide. I took repeated calls for “news” interviews about this incredible occurrence.
[Learn about the shocking new documentary No Guns For Negroes; blacks are systematically singled out for disarmament, even in this day and age.]
I mentioned to the local NBC-TV affiliate that the media seemed to be avoiding the fact that Chris, the well-known local libertarian with the rifle (and a sidearm), was black. “Well, we’re not supposed to mention race if it’s not a key part of the story.” My eyebrows shot up. “You have a black man with a gun! At a rally for the black president! That’s not relevant?” So she sheepishly admitted, with a chuckle, “Well, that would take away the whole redneck right-wing extremist thing.” This is known in “news” circles as objective reporting.
A lot of people at the rally had guns. About a dozen wore sidearms openly. You’re required to carry openly, that’s the law. There may have been dozens more with government permission slips to carry discreetly, no one can say. And the media doesn’t care about them, because the media's stated concern about the president’s safety is nonsense, a smokescreen. They don’t care about a possible threat like they say they do, and Chris posed none. They care about controversy and appearances, and that includes any gun any time any way. They hate guns. It shows. They wear their hatred on their sleeves.
We all saw that when Chris Mathews got apoplectic, obsessing over William Kostric who wore a sidearm during a similar demonstration in New Hampshire. Perfectly legal, no crimes committed, no one harmed, no victims, just open exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. The “news” man spent eight minutes -- an eternity in national TV time -- trying to make Kostric look radical, but failed miserably. Mathews came off as the radical, practically foaming as he cried gun gun gun gun. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA
The AP Radio Network reporter who interviewed me about this couldn’t stop asking why the Phoenix man wasn’t arrested. I kept telling her, “He didn’t do anything wrong.” She didn’t get it. Living in D.C. as she does this is no surprise. I told her she’s living in a bubble and doesn’t understand that out here in the U.S., people have guns, use guns, carry guns, buy and sell guns, it’s normal. “The only thing odd about any of this is you and your reaction.” “But why wasn’t he arrested? Don’t you realize the president was there?”
Actually, the president was not there, inside his own protective Secret Service bubble, but that didn’t register either. “Is the AP saying you don’t have your civil rights when the president is around? The right to speak, assemble, keep and bear arms -- these go away out there on the street during a peaceful protest?”
Listen up “news” media, there was no crime committed. No one was hurt. All behavior was perfectly legal. This man was making a point, and by all measures, he made it pretty well. You folks are stuck in a microcosm reality and can't tell.
If you have a right but can’t exercise it, you don’t have that right, right? Chris was exercising a fundamental enumerated right in the Constitution, at EXACTLY the appropriate time. This was a right and proper thing to do.
Let me put it in a metaphor:
The government is getting so far out of control that the farmers are showing up with pitchforks. What else would you expect?
A large segment of the nation can clearly see that the democrats in government, with complicit republicans, are taking over the nation’s economy -- which they have no authority to do. They can’t legally take money from you (taxes are collected by force, you know), and give it to companies that are run poorly. They can’t do that. They have no authority. That’s theft. If government can take your money, and do whatever it wants with it, that’s tyranny. Government without controls. A lot of people, not all but a lot, can see that clear as day.
A main purpose of the Second Amendment is for exactly this -- to prevent government from becoming tyrannical. Remember that here, people are the sovereigns and government is the servant. If that is lost, the Second Amendment is the last recourse the Founders built into the system.
Our government is abandoning the free markets, capitalism and values that made this the richest, most prosperous and most generous nation the world has ever seen. The democrats, since taking control under Mr. Obama, have absorbed the insurance industry, the banks, the car companies, the home mortgage market, and now they’re in a naked power grab for the entire medical business. It’s one straw too many.
They have absolutely no authority in the Constitution to do this. They’re abandoning The American Way and adopting socialism, the arch enemy of The American Way.
Of course people are upset. They have every right, nay, a duty, to show up at political rallies with their pitchforks. And it seems to be working. The politicians are getting the message.
IMPORTANT: We’ve lost sight of the fact that Mr. Obama insisted that this medical takeover bill be voted on immediately after its introduction. Before it could be read. That in itself is tyrannical.
Because that tactic failed, America got a chance to see what’s in the bill. Even his own party objected. It is an obscene threat to our way of life -- a monstrous unconstitutional socialist power grab for our doctors and our medicine. He can’t legitimately do that. Who actually wrote this thing, with its explosion of bureaucracy and unilateral controls? No one can say -- that alone should raise your tyranny-response-team color code.
Government has no business in the medical business. They have no delegated power to do so. And we can guess how it will run -- it will be like Mr. Obama’s unwitting comparison of Fedex, UPS and the post office. The first two (the private American ones) thrive, have short lines if any, get the job done great and you can track every parcel from your own home. The government-run other one has long lines, loses stuff left and right, can’t find anything in transit and is way beyond broke, propped up by government-backed debt. How is government absconding with the medical industry going to be different?
A man peacefully carrying a gun at a protest is just fine (except to gun bigots in newsrooms and untreated hoplophobes). That’s why open carry is legal, and why concealed carry has been outlawed here since statehood in 1912.
Times have changed to where now, with a brainwashed, gun-terrified public, discretion is in order and was "allowed" 14 years ago under a government management permit system. It puts all the FBI-certified innocent good guys in the criminal database for safe keeping.
In traditional America however, “Why would an honest person conceal a gun?” was the question Ben Avery and Sandra Day O’Conner pondered when they wrote our concealed-weapon ban (which by the way, violated our state Constitution and the convention debates from whence it came). The person openly armed poses a much lower threat to you than the person who hides. They understood this.
The affront of a government permission slip -- the popular CCW permit -- was only introduced in 1994, and about 130K have one, around 2% of the public. Yet around 50% of the public owns firearms -- they refuse to beg the government for a grant of permission to exercise their civil rights.
These are alien thoughts back east where the media frenzy is going full blast. And there you have it. It’s not about news, it’s about promoting an agenda: guns are bad, extremists have them, you should be afraid. Omigod, they have guns and aren’t even registered (registration has no crime-fighting component).
Let me tell you something the news totally suppresses. Guns are good. This is the very reason we are armed. Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns keep you safe. Guns keep the president safe. He is surrounded by guns constantly, because it’s the right thing to do. Guns are why America is still free.
Chicago’s WGN couldn’t believe we have the right to keep and bear arms out here. I had to tell them most places have RKBA, a surprise to them in their little cloister. “Do people shoot each other on the streets a lot?” They actually asked that. These folks aren’t in a bubble, they’re in a vacuum, they get nothing. “With your new guns-in-bars law, which has created quite a commotion here in Chicago, are there shootouts in bars?” I'm not making this up.
That law doesn’t take effect until October, but in the many states that have it, no, of course not. People go armed to restaurants all the time and the slow waitresses all live to tell about it. We’re talking about honest decent innocent Americans, not heinous bottom-feeding amoral criminal maggots. They can’t see a difference. "Do you have any shootouts?" he asks. Yes -- in the drug-gang infested bad parts of town where our illegal aliens hide. Just like your town -- crime is largely a socio-economic, demographic and especially geographic issue. See the maps.
The lamestream “news” has suppressed gun issues so thoroughly their audiences can’t imagine people could keep and bear arms peacefully, safely, responsibly, and not just commit murder on a daily basis. They conflate guns with crime, and have no other image -- they live in a fantasy world perpetrated by forces of darkness.
I tried to show the extent of the propagandizing they suffer under. The top three consumer sports for 2008, based on retail sales, are exercise, shooting sports and golf. You see two of those plenty, but have you seen any stories on the #2 consumer sport in the nation? Not a peep. Why is that? Do you think that has an effect on a well-informed public? You betcha. And it hurts this nation severely.
A Chicago caller to the show asks, “Well do you carry your golf clubs or exercise equipment into a restaurant?” This imbecile actually thinks he’s making sense. Gun ignorance has so blinded him, this is how he uses his 30 seconds of fame. I tell him of course I don’t. So he concludes, “See, you’re full of baloney,” and hangs up. He’s not even thinking rationally, and is convinced he’s right. Does he even know what the shooting sports are? I don't think so.
WGN mentions that in Chicago, NYC, and DC, where the major news orgs are based, this black-man-with-a-black-gun thing strikes them as stunning. Coincidentally these three cities are among the most repressive civil rights deniers in the nation -- and they have the gun-crime records to show for it. Guns are virtually banned for the innocent, yet armed criminals run around at will. But they cannot connect the dots.
So let me ask them. “Why aren’t the people who stole your rights arrested?”