See VA? Look closely at your future!

It seems like only yesterday when every democrat who was within earshot was saying "NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS" and suggesting that anyone who said otherwise was wearing an tinfoil hat and had been seduced by the NRA.  ANy mention of planned gun confiscation as a reason for not voting democrat was dismissed as insanity.

Well, it was not that long ago that Bozo O'Rourke proclaimed that "Hell Yes, We’re Going to Take Your AR-15".   It seems pretty clear that he is psychotic. So many of his primary opponents (back when he was in the race) called him crazy - not for believing it, but for saying it out loud.

Given recent events in Virginia, it is also true that Bozo's words were prophetic.  Fast forward to this very week, we have several newly elected leftist politicians in Virginia going full gun ban and confiscation. In response to that, many counties in VA have decided the become sanctuaries for the Second Amendment (can you imagine needed to create a sanctuary in order to practice the rights enshrined in the Constitution?).

Take this one for instance; Rep. Donald McEachin suggested using the National Guard to force compliance; “I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law. That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has."  And he is just one of many. Their message is "We expect you to obey - or else!"

As has been noted here before, THEY won't do it - he is threatening to have others with guns do it if you do not comply.  NO matter who you are - think about that - and if it does not give you great concern, then you are not an American.

So here we are.  Imagine where we will be, what the "or else" might look like:

- As is now evident, people in VA (and elsewhere) are not going to give them up willingly, will not be lining up to hand over their freedom to you.  You can pass your laws, set the date, time, and place, but don't bet on getting all of them.  Oh, a few perhaps....but not all.
- That means you are going to need willing people with guns to come and take them - because we know you are not going to do it yourself. 
- Many of those you will allow to have guns (e.g., law enforcement and that National Guard you want to mobilize) are the same people you are threatening with disarmament and violence.  Many of them are not going to be willing to engage in such lawless behavior in violation of the Bill of Rights.  So tough guy, what is your next move?
- Those you CAN get to agree to violate their oath and be your armed confiscators are ultimately going to have to go from house-to-house in your state to retrieve them, knocking on or breaking down doors, and engaging in gun battles with the occupants.
- Someone with guns knocks on the door or kicks it in under color of your unconstitutional law, says they're here to take my property?  Lethal force is now justified.
- Yes, those who refuse your tyranny, defend themselves and their property from unlawful confiscation will be labelled as gun nuts, right wing crazies, militia, white nationalists (as if whites will be the only ones resisting), domestic terrorists, fascists, deplorables clinging to their God and guns.
- Ah, but how long do you think the comfortable surburbanite soccer moms who have their "Moms demand action for gun sense in America" stickers are going to be in favor of this (sub)urban warfare in their sweet little neighborhood, on their little street. Will the American people really stand by for that?  Talk about abuse of power!

Most Americans have no stomach for war and death.  Well, sometimes the cowards do if it is on the other side of the world, in someone else's neighborhood. But bring it home, on their street?  Most Americans have never taken an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies - foreign AND domestic.  But many of us did and will fulfill that oath as necessary.  I know such focus, commitment, and sheer will is beyond most people's sheep-like condition. But I've had a long life, and I will not die on my knees to such tyranny. 

Long lost siblings?

Oh the anguish of the young!  These two were meant for each other.

You know, having watched some of her "speech" and hearing more of her history, I actually feel sorry for this abused and manipulated teenager.  She is clearly being taken advantage of and being abused by those with a climate-based agenda.  Very sad case. She is not well.

Hogg? He's just an idiot.

Bozo O'Rourke - Harbinger of Doom

As has been reported in many places, Bozo (or Beta) O'Rourke went full bat shit during the recent Dem debate, with his wild gesticulating and pronouncement that "Hell Yes, We’re Going to Take Your AR-15". 
  It seems pretty clear that he is psychotic - that he has not thought out how this would go, but then again virtually all of the people on that stage, in that audience or giving two shits about Bozo and his bunch have not either.

Tom Knighton does an excellent job over at Bearing Arms in laying out where this will likely go. Imagine a world where someone openly claims that they are going to violate your rights, violate your privacy and come to your home and take away your legally-owned property because they (even if they were to be the government) decided you do not need it. In most energetic, ambitious, wild-eyed, and epileptic fashion, Beta promises ("Hell yes") that he will take your legally-owned AR. Of course, he will have to make it illegal first, in effect turning millions of law-abiding Americans into criminals over night and not because they have done anything illegal. Well, in point of fact, this is exactly the scenario for which the Second Amendment was meant; tyrannical government. 

Of course BETA won't do it - he is threatening that he will have others with guns do it if you do not comply.  One Texas lawmaker's response was, in essence, "C'mon down!  Feelin' froggy, then jump." Well, what he said was "My AR is ready for you."  Of course, Bozo, who likely realizes he let his mouth overload his ass, whines "That's a death threat!". What he should do is sit down quietly somewhere, with no cameras on, a nice YooHoo and moon pie, and contemplate what that lawmakers real message was. It was a cautionary admonishment that a lot of death may come from such a fool's errand.

Translation: "Any one who comes to take my property will not do so peacefully! And many others feel the same!"

So Bozo is channeling his inner Swalwell (Bless his Heart!).  Just like him, he talks big talk and exudes false bravado, but when someone says blood will be shed, he cowers behind someone's skirts. A real tough guy until challenged.

To reiterate and expand on what his forced confiscation will foment:

- A lot of people are not going to let you have them, will not be lining up to hand over their freedom.  You can set the date, time, and place, but don't bet on getting all of them.  Oh, a few perhaps....but not all.
- That means you are going to need willing people with guns to come and take them - because we know you are not going to do it yourself. 
- Many of those you will allow to have guns (e.g., law enforcement and government employees) are not going to be willing to engage in such lawless behavior.  So what is your next move?
- Those you CAN get to agree to be your armed confiscators are ultimately going to have to go house-to-house to retrieve them, knocking on doors, breaking down doors, and engaging in gun battles with the occupants.
- Someone with guns knocks on the door or kicks it in, says they're here to take my property?  Lethal force is now justified.
- How long do you think Johnny and Jane Surburbia are going to be in favor of this urban warfare in their sweet little neighborhood. That is, if they are not the ones shooting back.

So - BOZO - that's why your threat was met with a warning. Will the American people really stand by for that?  Oh, yes, you say they will.  You say you spoke to AR owners at a gun show and they were more than willing to comply.  From what you said, they told you that "I have one that I don't really need, so I will gladly hand it over". In the kindest way I can say it, that's incredible bull shit right there.

Most Americans, and certainly your supporters, are already whining about wars and death in other countries. What about when it is on their street?  Some of us took an oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies - foreign AND domestic - and many of us will go down fulfilling that oath as necessary. Neither you nor any of your cronies are above that ultimate law.  I know such focus, commitment, and sheer will is beyond Bozo's ability to comprehend.  But I've had a long life, and I will not die on my knees in service of your warped ideology. Hell, we who are members of the NRA have already been called Domestic Terrorists by the nutcases in CA. 

Be careful what you wish for.

Napolitano on the Second Amendment

An excellent opinion piece by Judge Napolitano!

Money bits:

- It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety.

- It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

- The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.

Anti-firearm forces have been nibbling away at the the right to keep and bear arms for years, slowly "boiling the frog" one bite at a time. Because the underlying issues involved in mass killing sprees, it is clear none of these will work - even a total ban were it to be attempted.

1.  We have been unable to keep illicit drugs from entering this country no matter Herculean efforts. Do we really think we can keep guns from coming across our southern and northern borders?

2.  Even if every law-abiding gun-owning citizen were willing to turn in their firearms, will the firearms in the hands of criminals also be turned in. Is that not out of character for a criminal?

3. It is assumed that law-abiding citizens will willingly do so. Therein lies a great conundrum; crime with firearms is committed by non law-abiding people. So passing a law requiring the turn-in of firearms relies on people's willingness to follow the law.  Hence, you are only disarming the least threatening elements in society.

4.  Of course, as I have noted before, the assumption that law-abiding citizens will comply is faulty.

True hate - and hypocrisy - on display

Imagine this:  A movie in which the dreaded "militias" all set out to hunt down all those peaceful democrat supporters out there. [I know, it's clearly fantasy]. Imagine, if you will, the wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and twisting of panties.

Now imagine a movie in which "deplorables" are hunted down ("The Hunt").  And please don't try to deny that you know who the "deplorables" are!

Now, riddle me this:  How is this not inciting violence? How is this not the kind of thing that the Dayton or El Paso shooter would have found motivational?  In fact, it has been reported that the Dayton shooter (yes, the Warren supporter) enjoyed watching videos of mass killings.  Now he could - if the scumbag had lived - see it on the big screen - and then shoot up the theater.  Of course, it would all be the gun's, gun owners' and NRA's fault.

So, their point is:  Violence and hate are bad, unless they are directed at the right group. This movie - and every democrat candidate for POTUS - have clearly identified who that "right group" is.  Please use critical thinking and evaluate this presentation in combination with a desire to disarm law-abiding gun owners. Remember that we are all deplorable because we are all complicit in their eyes.  If you are a member of the NRA or GOA or any other 2A-supporting organization, then you are considered a domestic terrorist.

Don't think for an instant that these "deplorables" will so sheepishly go to the slaughter you have planned. You may be about to learn what the Second Amendment was actually intended to accomplish.

I reiterate here what I now consider highly likely consequences of this divisive and dangerous democrat strategy:

- A lot of people are not going to turn firearms in willingly, not going to hand over their rightfully-owned property.  Plenty of data support this, not only in the US where bans and "buybacks" have been widely ignored, but in other nations where this tyranny has been enacted. 

- Willing people with guns will be needed to "come and take" them from armed non-compliant citizens.  So guns will be left in the hands of government to enforce this unconstitutional mandate. This merely proves how prescient the founders were in codifying the illegality of infringement and the sanctity of the right to keep and bear arms.

-The first line of traitors who will attempt confiscate arms will be drawn from local Law Enforcement. A lot of LEOs will refuse to enforce such laws. It is likely, especially in some urban areas and Socialist states, that ample traitors will violate their oaths.  This will put LEO on both sides of this conflict.  In my State, there are Sheriffs who will not suborn such infringement and may act against it.

- Those traitors who do comply and enlist to enforce confiscatory actions are going to have to go house-to-house in some locales to retrieve them.  This will not only be in the suburbs, but in high density population centers as well (less likely that the efforts will ensue in rural locales).  Those affected by this confiscation will represent a wide range of races, ethnicity and ages. This may even serve to unite groups that have previously been at odds, given a common enemy - at least for a while.  This will be a massive undertaking in what will be significantly hostile environments - and such environments favor the defender unless methods of mass destruction are used (If you don't think so, ponder why areas of cities like Baltimore and Chicago are basically no-enforcement zones.  Consider LEOs being assaulted with water and buckets in NYC or harassed in Philly while under siege from a career criminal gunman). 

- When those in uniform carrying guns knock on your door or kick it in, announcing they are there to take your property by force, the first thing it should do is bring up images of all of the totalitarian regimes in history.  Here are armed representatives of your government, forcibly entering your domicile, demanding that you turn over your property, threatening you and yours with bodily harm if you do not. Be sure if this happens you have the cameras rolling to create a historical record for broadcast as proof of the imposition of unconstitutional law by lethal force. I think the LEOs who defy their oath will soon find that "Blue Lives Matter" is contingent on them being faithful to their oath, not the unlawful whims of politicians and government. Many who believe blue lives matter will also resist confiscation.

- Lethal force is justified no matter the law. Yes, I know - Castle Doctrine has exceptions for LEO who are there in an LE capacity.  But, frankly, once the Inherent Rights of the Individual, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are violated and infringement is in progress, protection of ourselves, our loved ones and our "Castle" now reflects the existence and precedence of common and natural law - since their actions are without true rule of law and have abrogated any other legal consideration. Remember, the Second Amendment did not create the right, it merely asserts that the existing right shall be not be infringed upon by government.

- There will be blood - on all sides.  Betty and Bobby Suburban (who probably applauded gun confiscation) will be woken up by the gunshots at the next-door neighbors' house, as the traitor police make entry and the law-abiding homeowner is forced to defend himself, his family, his property and his rights.  Hell, they will probably be the ones who called police to report a "Red Flag" warning.  They may be woken up by the neighbor they turned in using the "Report your local rifle owner" hotline.  Either one of these may become fairly common occurrences, along with SWATting and Red-Flagging.

- Given that most Americans do not even have the hearts or fortitude for long protracted violent engagements on the other side of the world, and have shown a great reticence to defend their own nation against enemies, foreign and domestic, for how long is it likely they will have it for door-to-door operations in their own neighborhood?  I suspect not for long.

Red Flag Laws - the pitfalls

RED FLAG LAWS

Sad to see so many conservatives - most notably sad to see Dan Crenshaw join in - have decided to jump on this idea of Red Flag Laws.  While on the face of it, such laws sound like reasonable proposals, there are numerous issues to be dealt with.

1.  What will be required to trigger the execution of a Red Flag complaint?

So far, I am not seeing any detailed language.  I have seen "Court Order" mentioned. But how is the process initiated?  Who can initiate it? IS there going to be a "report your neighbor" hotline?  What kind of investigation will be needed in order to get a "Court Order" for removal? How long will the whole process take?

Unless one has been living under a rock, they are probably aware of the use of SWATting by some individuals. For those who have not, per Wikipedia "Swatting is the harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person's address".  So, make a 911 call of a domestic disturbance or MWAG at a given address and the LE arrive with guns drawn. In the worst-case scenario, the home owner hears the commotion, suspects a home invasion in progress and answers the door with a gun in his hand (there have already been cases of LEOs shooting homeowners through their own front door).  The rest is an "Oh, well, so sorry" story we have seen before. Combine this idea with the progressive tactic of "doxxing" - again per Wikipedia "Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information about an individual or organization" and you will have progressive militants passing around identifying information on conservatives in their area so that such calls can be made.

How farfetched is it that progressives, especially AntiFA, will use these tactics to submit accusations against conservatives?  Not at all. They and progressives in general have already shown their willingness to use extreme measures in pursuit of their goals.

There will need to be many details worked out in order to protect the law-abiding from this sort of tactic.  We cannot, in attempting to protect innocent lives from crazy people, sacrifice law-abiding peaceful citizens. [Of course this is what those hoping to ban guns ultimately desire - since we do the same thing when we ban guns - punish the law-abiding for the act of the criminal].

2.  What provisions will be in place to punish those who knowingly make unfounded complaints or reports?

Given the above, there will be a need for swift and strong repercussions for false reports.  Of course, let's be honest; no proposed punishment for false reporting will be sufficient to make up for the death of a law-abiding gun owner. It is obvious that those who support this idea prefer to inconvenience and even unlawfully detain and disarm gun owners as a means to try to end the carnage.  Sadly, when it is clear it does not work, they will simply move on to the next dumb idea. On its face, it seems logical.  But when the inevitable scenarios above come to fruition, we will be trading deaths for deaths. But the progressives will not consider the law-abiding gun owner's death as tragic.

So what protections will be in place?  What consequences for false accusation? Unless draconian and swift, these laws will be nothing more than an invitation to attack gun owners and I am sure everyone who reports will have a sincere sense of "good faith" in their report.  Right!

3.  What provisions will be in place for reinstating unjustly removed rights from those who are found competent and stable?

Given that many reports will be false-positives, what provisions will be in place for rapid investigation, exoneration, and restoration of rights and property? For those who are lucky enough to survive the first encounter, when a SWAT team shows up at their door with a court order, who are then even more fortunate to be found competent to retain their rights and property (given that the underlying principle will likely be "guilty until proven innocent"), how will this be done in an expeditious manner?


4. Does this do more than just deal with the firearm?  What about the person or their issues?

Do such laws also mandate involuntary hospitalization? Are the same standards of "danger to self or others" taken into account?  Will we take away someone's firearms but send them home to hop in their car, pull out a machete or simply bludgeon someone to death? If the person is deemed too dysfunctional to possess firearms, what else can be done for them? Apparently these laws are only concerned with removing one possible too for violence, as if it is the firearm that contains the violence (which seems to describe many people's opinion).

5.  Most psychologists, if they are honest, will tell you how bad we are at accurately predicting violence.

We hear so many politicians, pundits, and police remark on the need for routine mental health evaluation in order to purchase a firearm. As a psychologist I will only note that we are really not at all good at predicting who will commit such acts of violence.  Violence, like all behavior, is an ever-shifting mix of person place and situation.  It is clear that, when presented with acts of violence like we saw this weekend, we quickly look at the background and say "Well that was obvious".  But in a prospective manner, such things are hard to predict and the histories of many mass/active killers may not be so dissimilar from others who will never commit such violence. We are likely to have many false-positives, and while it is better to have false-positives than fals4 negatives, we have to contend with all of the issues above.

Especially in these days of social media, many people display behavior and parts of themselves that they would not normally show and are likely to make comments they might not normally make, play a persona they wish they could be, but are not (Often referred to as "Internet tough guys"). Very few of those will ever act. Many people have thoughts and emotions that appear violent in nature, but whose behavior is not violent. We have seen several democrat candidates for POTUS remark with violent imagery and rhetoric, yet no one has thrown the red flag on them yet.

What the history and background of many of these cases tells us is that we need to address "normalcy bias." That is, when confronted with unusual actions or behaviors, people will put considerable mental effort into explaining it away, forcing it to fit into a picture of normalcy. The Dayton shooter had kill lists and rape lists and a long history of behavior that was threatening. The Parkland shooter had a long history of violence and threatening behavior.  Both, and many others of similar bent, were seen by others and feared by others, yet n no one did anything.  For some reason both, apparently were allowed to go their way, whether people found a way to explain it to themselves as "normal" or people simply were unwilling to risk taking the actions necessary to contain the threat.

Later, they find great comfort in blaming the firearm and anyone who owns one. 

El Paso, Dayton, Red Flags and the true hate

Tragedies this weekend.  The death toll rises in El Paso.

Two shooters, representing both poles of our current divide, too much hate,

I won't recount all of the potentially divisive and "hateful" (I hate that word) things our POTUS has said. I will note that most often he is accused of hate more for his delivery than his content. He is not careful with his words and I think it diminishes his message. But his ideas of protecting our sovereignty and borders are sound and his expectation that those who serve disadvantaged districts should support their constituents and not unlawful entrants to our country makes good sense.

What I would like to do is shine a light on the fact that those screaming about "hatred" have done nothing but stoke the fires they want us to believe they are against.

First, while the only thing the media seem interested in is the "manifesto" of the El Paso killer, there has been little scrutiny or notice of the progressive political leanings of the Dayton killer. Apparently, to progressives, it is okay to hate as long as you hate the right people.

How peaceful are the progressives?

- I have to start with Reza Azlan. Very little commentary is needed on these two tweets (I hate that word, too):

You are “the depraved evil” we need to eradicate. https://t.co/zPJhVS1hkn — Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) August 4, 2019

and

After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters – ALL OF THEM – are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.

— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) August 4, 2019

 Hmmmmmmmmm - calling for the eradication of a large swath of the popuoation based on his calculation that they are racists. Classy and peaceful.

- What does Bozo O'Rourke think the effect of his words, such as "Jesus Christ, of course he's a racist" might be?  Yea, next to Azlan these are amateurish grade-school taunts.  But I work in the mental health field and I know there are plenty of unwell people out there who hear a phrase Bozo's or Azlan's and consider it a justification, in invitation to do violence. It only gets worse when they add that "and all his supporters are "racists" too."

- This same logic follows from statements from others, for instance AOC, when referring to CBP and ICE officers as "nazis" and lawful holding centers as "Concentration camps".  Has the same MSM called out her for rhetoric that most certainly lead to the recent attempts to shoot up a center by an AntiFA militant? That was not hate speech?

Again - their message is clear: It is okay to hate as long as you hate the right person/people. Some protected classes of people are not to be disrespected.

While it's clear that rhetoric like the above might motivate the militant wing of the progressive movement, such as AntiFA what is not as easily recognized is how hate speech from the left might also motivate action by mentally unhealthy conservatives.

The left has spent generations now, telling us that acting out and criminal behavior within certain segments of our population are a function of having been oppressed and downtrodden.  They have bent over backward to excuse such behavior.  Yet they cannot see how being called a nazi, a white nationalist, a racist and a long list of others when one is none-of-the-above might be the new form of institutional hatred and lead to violent action. When you keep telling the "bad" kid he is bad and will never be any better, sometimes he comes to agree and decides that he will be the "baddest bad kid" he can be.

AOC and dehumanization

According to multiple sources, Congresswoman and "Squad" leader (what a ridiculous moniker - maybe call them the spud) asked this question of Acting DHS Secretary McAleenan:

“Do you think that the policy of child separation could have contributed to a dehumanizing culture within CBP that contributes and kind of spills over to other areas of conduct?"

While some of the behavior of the agents noted in recent reports and this exchange was abhorrent, it is not unpredictable.

In that vein, I wonder is she has considered how she would answer a similar question, and one I would love to have seen him ask in return:

"Madame Congresswoman, do you think that your policy of calling our Border Patrol and ICE officers "Nazis" and lying that they were making their charges drink from toilets, might contribute to a deterioration in some of their psychological well-being and conduct?  Do you think that your and other's constant criticism of their selfless work in the overcrowded detention centers that the law you could change requires them to keep immigrants illegally crossing the Southern Border in might cause enormous psychological distress for both them and their charges.  Do you understand that it might contribute not only to issues with officers' conduct, but also to the violence by ANTIFA, such as the attack on a detention facility? What responsibility will you bear for such conduct?"

We might best consider these agents as being on the front line of a war.  Much as happened in our nation during the conflict in Viet Nam (and sadly seems close to happening now), the public devaluation or downright criticism of those on the front lines of those wars by public officials leads to awful consequences.  The ability of warriors - be it these agents or our warriors serving around the world - to do their duty, to serve our nation in incredibly stressful conditions relies on support from the larger society and a belief in the fact that their work, their sacrifice, is meaningful.

AOC and her spuds are the public face of such criticism - and she feigns ignorance and surprise that this causes them outrage. Her self-absorbed immaturity defies belief.  To her it is all a game, all just words to throw around, like "Nazi".  She wonders why those about whom she lies, whom she denigrates and dehumanizes and  refers to as "Nazis" running "Concentration camps" might begin to view her in negative ways? She is a child with no experience to create context for her in relation to the words she throws around so flippantly.

She is dehumanizing them.  She is, in essence, waiting at the airport, so she can spit on warriors returning from VN, call them baby killers.  Officers, warriors, doing the job they are sworn to do in accordance with laws that she could change if she cared, being called enemies of the very state they serve, by a young woman who would not know service, commitment, bravery, sacrifice, or loyalty if it bit here where her brains reside.

Racism....casting the widest possible net

I am sure that each and every one of us knows what it means when someone calls someone else a "racist" - a ubiquitous occurrence these days.

Of course, it is also likely that each of us knows or hears something different.  So...it might be interesting to look at definitions that are available on the web.

I figured maybe looking at Britannica would be a good place to start:

"Racism, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis."

Not really a good definition because it lacks specificity - it is overly general, or double-barreled. It's first definition is that it reflects the belief that humanity can be divided into existing biological categories known as races.  Indeed, this seems fairly obvious and hardly controversial. Even those who are constantly race baiting inherently believe this.

Secondly, while it is not as acceptable socially, there is a fair amount of science that supports position two - that there are physical and personality traits that may typify those in a category. Hell, I learned that watching comedy jam on BET - the comics were funny as hell and really good at lampooning white people, from their milquetoast speech patterns to walking like they have a stick up their ass. But since the "races" evolved largely in isolation, and their cultures, personality, physical characteristics and abilities  - as well as their skin color - are adaptations to those disparate environments, it follows that they are different. That is not, however, to say that there is no within race variability. 

Where they then go a bit off the rails is that their definition then conflates those realistic notions with the belief in innate superiority of one race over another. If this is true then either everyone is racist or no one is racist. Certainly the implication to be drawn from those comedians referenced above was that there was a right way and a wrong way to be - and those who are the wrong way are appropriate fodder for comedy. Is there a race, religion, or creed that does not consider itself better than others and find humor in those differences? I suspect those comedians would recognize that superiority is context-specific. Many of the black friends I have worked with have told me they have their "white" voice and their "black" voice.  They know what works in what contexts.  Many white friends I have are similar. Hell, go to any gym and see Billy Bob the lilly-white executive come in wearing his suit and come out of the locker room dressed in ghetto.

Lastly they exhibit the same hubris that so many people have in the past few decades - because they think something is true, it must be.  At best, if race is a social construction, it is based on more than our imagination.  From whence to these constructions come?  Ask those black comics if I am wrong.

On to Merriam-Webster: 

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles 
b : a political or social system founded on racism 
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination 

Number 1 is nothing new.  However, I would say that, if one thinks that racism reflects identifying race as the "primary determinant," then the vast majority of what is being called racism today is not, in fact, racism.  If that assertion is the case, then referring to a "person of color" as ignorant, traitorous, or whatever is not racist. There is a difference between being labelled a traitor because one is black (racism) and being labelled a traitor while black (not racism).

Number 2 - and to some extent 2b - are institutionalized racism. However, I think there are problems with that idea as well. Most notably, that it is a post-hoc explanation - if a member of a group does not succeed in the system, then the system is assumed to be racist. In fact, in many ways those who look at such examples - say note that people fail in society because of their race - then they are, but the above definition, racists - regardless of their own race.

Ah, Number 3.  Here we can make some headway.  So, say Congresswomen X is black.  Say she consistently criticizes the president, the nation, and everyone who does not agree with her.  Say she is anti-Semitic and pro-terror.  Is calling her a "women of color" incorrect?  No, it is what she would call herself.  Is telling her she should return to the land she left to come to the US racism?  No. Is this prejudice?  No - there is ample evidence to judge this person's character independent of her race, color, or creed. As noted above, saying someone is ignorant because they are a woman of color is racists.  Say they are a woman of color who is ignorant is not.If it were, then race, color or creed constitute a "get out of criticism free" card.

Trump's Tweet

So, the essence of Trump's tweets:  "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how...".

I don't see race in there...yes, he is referring to four congresswomen who happen to be women of color - and who find it of great utility to interpret any criticism of them as reflecting their "color".  Hell they even accused Pelosi of that. And one of them plainly showed her own racist tendencies when she attacked other "people of color" for not agreeing with her - as in, we don't need any more black faces that are not black voices. Clearly she is insisting on her own definitions.

However, it should be clear to all of those who have repeatedly screamed about Trump's boorish behavior, that he is an equal opportunity critic.  He would not hesitate to say the same thing about anyone, regardless of color - and in fact has already done so (revisit his tweets and rhetoric regarding his primary opponents in 2016).  Good or bad, he is a prick to everyone. 

The progressive democrat and media approach suggests that no one can speak ill of anyone who is "of color", no matter what they say or do. To consider the opinion of a person, who is also "of color" idiotic has become, by default, racist.  In truth, that assertion itself is a better fit for the existing definitions of racism than anything Trump said - that race/color creates a hierarchical system where some are above criticism, are held to a different standard.

Racism?  

Am I saying racism does not exist?  No. It exists in many places and in many ways.  The idea of white privilege is racism given above definitions....it asserts that the race, the color (or lack thereof apparently) is a main determinant, a cause.  

But because racism should rightly be viewed as heinous by our society, regardless of whom it is perpetrated against, tying that term to others becomes a handy tool for those who wish to bludgeon those others into submission.  Calling everything one dislikes as racism, calling any criticism of a "person of color" racism, denigrates the concept. It not considered racism to call Trump's supporters "deplorables?"  It was not considered racism for AOC to call Trump supporters "garbage?" Rightfully so. Nor is it racism to ask for congresspeople why, if they are unhappy with this country, they don't go elsewhere.

 

A moment of clarity on gun-free zones

From the Black Man With A Gun blog:






So...in 96.2% of shootings the only gun present is there illegally and is the one used to do the shooting. 

What, you mean making the firearm illegal there doesn't stop a murderer?