Washington Post writer Jannell Ross tried to hang racism, white supremacy, biker culture, and gun rights around Texas Republican necks in a literary lynching so stuffed full of wrong presumptions that if words were mathematical, Ross’ article would prove that gravity makes things fall up.
Here’s the key takeaway from the article. Whites are free to be either law-abiding citizens or dangerous Harley-riding savages, while blacks are slaves to the white man, whether he’s the cop in uniform or the gun-wielding biker. And #blacklivesmatter when one black man dies at the hands of police and the rioters are called “thugs,” but nine white bikers dead is just more white privilege.
Now to unpack all that.
First, Ross thought it was racist that the Texas legislature debated an “open carry” law, which has been newsworthy for at least a year, the week after the Waco gang fight. She called the legislation “a bill that would expand the rights of licensed gun owners to openly carry weapons in public,” as if gun rights aren’t based on the Second Amendment—or more likely–that the Second Amendment is non-existent.
I especially like how she referred to “licensed gun owners,” because Texas has no statewide gun registration, and Texas gun owners are not required to be licensed. Texas does issue a Concealed Handgun License, which allows the license holder to carry a pistol or revolver on their person, in public, as long as it remains concealed.
And, oh yeah, the Texas Concealed Handgun License application does require the race and sex of the applicant, so it must be racist and sexist. It also requires fingerprints, so it must be digitist. And it requires a $140 fee, so it must be economically discriminatory. Lastly, it requires a “criminal history record information,” including “a list of offenses for which the applicant was arrested, charged, or under an information or indictment and the disposition of the offenses.”
Yes, Texas is, I’m afraid, anti-felonist in its application of handgun concealed carry laws. Of course, that also makes it racist.
But concealed carry has very little to do with “open carry.”
Texas “open carry” is the debate over allowing gun owners to strap a pistol on their hip in public places. Citizens are already permitted to do so on their own property, or while hunting or sport shooting—with no license at all. Anyone legally permitted to own a rifle or shotgun can also openly carry, license free.
In Texas, gun owners can even carry (loaded) firearms in their cars, within reach, all without a license.
Ross’ statement that Texas open carry would “expand the rights of licensed gun owners” is absurd on its face. The accurate description is that gun owners with a concealed permit would be legally permitted to openly carry their weapon—a right given to them by the Second Amendment. The bill enabling that change, H.B. 910, simply removes the word “concealed” from most of the provisions applying to carrying handguns, and establishes a few standards for open carrying of the same.
How who gets to carry a pistol in Texas is related to racism, I really can’t say, because I’m not a race-baiting liberal who sees a KKK hood behind every tree—and I don’t think that every black thug is only looting and burning because of white man’s privilege and black economic conditions (that liberals created).
How a knife, chain, and gun fight between essentially white biker gangs proves white racism is also beyond me. Not being steeped in biker gang culture, however, I would venture a guess that the Bandidos and the Cossacks motorcycle gangs are not particularly politically correct or racially diverse.
But then again, neither are the Black Panthers or the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.
The Huey P. Newton Gun Club is named after the co-founder of the Black Panther Party, and advocates Texas open carry. And if you’re white, don’t bother filling out their membership application, because unlike Texas’ state government, Huey P. Newton Gun Club doesn’t accept whites.
— HueyPNewton Gun Club (@HueyGunClub) March 16, 2015
Funny how WaPo conveniently left that group out of its lily-white analysis, because it doesn’t fit their argument that white equals gun-toting racist and black equals victim. Calling out the fact that white biker gangsters aren’t called “thugs” while black Baltimore looters are called “thugs” doesn’t change the fact that both groups are composed of depraved criminals. The looters may be less structured than the bikers, but they are equally well-organized. Ross belabored us with all that to belatedly arrive at her point: “White privilege.”
White Americans – whether members of biker gangs, declared criminal organizations or not– enjoy the constant luxury of being viewed as precisely what they are: individuals capable of all manner of accomplishment and bad behavior at any given moment in time.
Dr. Martin Luther King did not consider it a “luxury” for a man to be judged by the content of his character. He considered that to be a dream worthy of dying for. With black men and women in high positions of government, the military, the courts, Congress and business, how Ross can make this statement straight-faced is difficult to comprehend.
— Ellen Martel (@emarty) May 18, 2015
Perhaps she, like the tweet above that she featured in her article, believes that white politicians “coddled” the biker thugs in Waco. Maybe nine dead bikers and about 170 arrests is considered coddling, because nobody called them “thugs.” There were no deaths in Baltimore, where police were ordered to give the looters “room to destroy,” and destroy they did: $9 million in property damage. Aside from a few ricochets and the damaged reputation of Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, nobody there had “room to destroy.”
No weight of facts or logic can derail the Left’s narrative: Calling a thug a “thug” is racist when the object of the word is black, but killing a white motorcycle gangster is just more white privilege.
These are the hard truths of which the Left speaks.
(crossposted from RedState.com)