Dr. Patrick is one of the scholars who gets it about guns. He’s one of the few on our side to be able to wade through the leftist academy and get his PhD before they realized he wasn’t really one of them. It will be interesting to see what he says about the Zombie craze.
Readers of this blog will know that I really like Brian Anse Patrick. I like his book, Rise of the Anti-Media, and quoted from it multiple times. Dr. Patrick decided to go and watch Colin Goddard’s “documentary” film Living for 32. Dr. Patrick, a professor at the University of Toledo, is an associate professor in their department of Communication, and he deconstructs Living for 32 as a piece of propaganda.
This transmutation of the lead of the bullets to the gold he gets paid is why St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hoffman calls Colin Goddard “The Alchemist.”
He also talks a bit about his theory that people who favor gun control actually favor a regime of administrative control of society, one where experts manage most aspects of life instead of accepting that individuals have choices.
Read the whole thing. As a Professor of Communication, he often uses big words, but the concepts are fairly easy to understand. He’s just using all those fancy words so that the opposition knows that he’s on to them. They can’t pretend that he’s too stupid to understand what they are doing if he uses their own language back at them.
Watch all three of these videos. Seriously, take the time and listen to this guy. He’s actually a professor of media. He’ll tell you how to stop getting run over by the media and getting your message out.
“Listen dumbass, your life is being threatened. Right now you should be concentrating on pulling your licensed, concealed carry weapon, and sight alignment and trigger control.”
More reliable traces of the racial intentions and social practices behind many gun and concealed carry regulations are preserved in law, court reporting and legal decisions. Citing only a few of the many decisions of this type, Florida Supreme Court Justice J. Buford, in a 1941 opinion dismissing the concealed carry conviction of a white man for having a pistol in his vehicle’s glove box, writes, “I know something of the history of this legislation… The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.” Continuing, regarding related clauses of legislation restricting Winchester repeating rifles, he writes “…there has never been, within my knowledge any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested”
The operative word in “Gun Control” was never “Gun.” It was always “Control.” You will note that the Judge doesn’t seem to give a damn if unconstitutional laws were applied to minorities. We live in a much more egalitarian society. Now the judges don’t seem to give a damn if unconstitutional laws are applied to everyone.
Open carry was an unambiguous right, and never an issue. Even William McAdoo, the publicity –hound New York Chief Magistrate who crusader nationally against handguns, an early master of the sound bite, who claimed he would rather have a cobra snake in his house than a handgun, admits the existence of an individual constitutional right to bear arms, but qualified in regard to the “gun-toting” of concealed handguns: “No one has a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon like a pistol. Any citizen can go all over the country, including New York State, with a rifle on one shoulder and a shotgun on the other and there is no law to interfere with him.”
(Discussing early concealed carry laws and attitudes)
New York Times admits, even in articles championing laws against general concealed carry, that some men might go armed when pursuing their business: “we do not deny the propriety of a man’s arming himself who has to venture at night into dangerous localities.” The Times then qualifies this remark, “ But what business have such people as Daniel McKay, ‘book-keeper at 405 Broadway’ with loaded pistols at 8 o’clock in the morning in front of the City Hall?” (Carrying Deadly Weapons, April 12, 1860) McKay, who injured a seamstress when his pistol dropped and discharged, is dismissed as a low-class “shopman” carrying deadly weapons to his employers’ “counting-house.”The implication is that carrying deadly arms should be left to his social betters.
Isn’t this basically every anti-concealed carry argument we’ve ever heard? Who are we to demand a right to carry defensive arms? In the old country, bearing arms was limited to the nobility. Those who object to us carrying arms are basically saying, you aren’t good enough, serf.
Groups formed specifically to promote concealed carry remain as formidable, although sometimes latent, political powers in many states even after the passage of such acts, while antigun groups, although often generously funded under private foundation program initiatives, resemble the skeleton crews left on an abandoned ship – a “director” and a sole office assistant to respond to media queries, with a remote and largely silent “membership” that exists more as an abstract statistical aggregation than a living body.
While most people with anti-gun opinions are not positively acting on their beliefs and merely refrain from having guns, a much more considerable proportion of gun owners routinely undertake associational action, although even the majority of gun owners remain socially inert by being nonaligned with formal associations
Concealed Carry is a reality not only because its adherents communicate more effectively, but also because mass-mediated news organizations have been superseded in their once largely unchallenged role as the legitimizing interpretive experts of this mass democratic society.