No one should be shocked to learn that a liberal gun grabber is racist.
Agreed. Having been raised in the South, I am abundantly aware of the vehement, if not flagrant racism embedded deep within the Democrat party.
Much of modern welfare is predicated on the "soft racism" of low expectations of minorities. Some is based on the fear that if the welfare money stops flowing to inner cities violence will erupt, or at the very least that various demographics might stop voting for the democrat benefactors.
Money (welfare) is the drug on which the dems have hooked half of American voters. It's costly, but if they can stay in power, they can continue raising taxes and bilking trillions out of the rest of us while shoving their largely non-existent "programs" down our throats as the excuse for our poverty.
Bloomberg's statement is racist on two fronts:
1-Even "The Color of Crime" (published by a group frequently accused of racism, but based on FBI crime stats) doesn't claim black young men are responsible for 95% of murders.
2-To use the bad conduct of part of a group as an excuse to mistreat (by denying constitutional rights) the entire group is the typical conduct of racists and other bigots.
I'm not surprised at his M.O. -- it's precisely the same the antis use to wrongly associate bad guys and good guys. In our case, it's about our keeping and bearing arms. We do so for noble purposes. Criminals do so for ignoble purposes. In the case of Bloomberg's heinous racism against blacks, it's about the color of their skin. Most blacks are noble. Some are not. Bloomberg's racism is firmly rooted in treating all blacks as ignoble, the same as he treats all of us who keep and bear arms as ignoble.
Furthermore, let us remember that gun control going back to the early slave codes and coming up through Jim Crow was designed to disarm blacks (as well as recent Irish, Italian, and Catholic immigrants along with other "undesirable" elements of society). This has morphed into socio-economic discrimination rather than overt racism, but those most affected by high-cost, discriminatory permits remain racial minorities.
Strongly agree, and I have a decent example:
When I moved to Washington State, the CC permit was a whopping $23. That included the FBI background check. No "safety" training required.
When I moved to North Carolina just three years later, the CC permit was more than four times as much at $99. On top of that, the state required a $150 "safety" training, despite the fact I'd attended three such events, courtesy of the military in the past six years.
$250 in NC vs $23 in WA. More than ten times as much. A $227 premium.
I'm a good America taxpayer, so I called. No good answer. So I visited their office and got the runaround. I seriously wanted to know why they thought the massive premiums were justified.
I just thought it was grift, until one state legislator said something along the lines of, "Well, we who can afford it shouldn't complain, should we." Not exactly an open confession, and at the time I just thought it confirmed grift. When I came across some of the comments in the forum, however, I reconsidered my position.
Sadly, the actual criminals who need to be disarmed are, too often, left to roam the streets rather than being properly convicted and incarcerated because of soft-on-crime policies from Bloomberg's fellow travelers. Indeed, the current mandatory minimum sentences that are of such concern to the DoJ, were a reaction to liberal judges handing far too light of sentences a generation ago.
But we should be able to make use of Bloomberg's racist statements to undercut his credibility with those who may be on the fence about RKBA but who are convinced that minorities are frequently, very poorly treated by the government.
Shouldn't be difficult. He handed everyone the abundantly clear evidence of his rampant racism on a platter.
