Rural white conservatives have a disturbing fetish with insisting they are “real America” and everyone else is .. fake, I guess?
A little harm to fathom the reasoning since we’ll be majority-minority in the next few decades and vastly more people in Chicago and New York than the entire Midwestern band of “real America”, but hey! Whatever floats your boat.
That Chicago is a mixture of many different nationalities and ethnicities, while the rest of Illinois isn’t? I guess Pearson doesn’t know about all the German, French, Dutch and other settlers all over Illinois. But they’re all white, so I guess that makes it ok.
Pawn. Please explain exactly what conclusion you are reaching about about Mr. Pearson. Based upon your “Dog Whistle” comment, I assume there is something very sinister about him that you should not be so vague about.
Can we “read into” the gun lobby’s selective defenses of white gun owners who kill black folks vs their lack of defense for black gun owners like philando Castile who get killed by police?
I’m so confused. By “the rest of Illinois,” did he mean the 11% of the population that lives in rural areas and is like the 20% of the population of the U.S. that is rural? And by, “America” (which is a continent, not a country), did he actually mean the U.S.?
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Jul 30, 18 @ 12:40 pm:
==[Pearson]argued that holders of firearm owner identification cards, or FOIDs, commit fewer crimes than the general population because they undergo regular background checks.==
Chicagoans can have FOID cards and concealed carry cards just like everyone else in Illinois. So how are they different?
It’s Ol’ Reliable, the old dog whistle. Stoke up rural white conservatives’ resentment of big city Democrats and their voters, many of whom are black and brown.
Trump knows this play very well, and the GOP has to be elated and relieved its autopsy of the 2012 presidential election was not followed—reach out to minorities. The electoral strength of the GOP depends a lot on the resentment, anger and fear of rural whites.
==Well then I guess you still have your rights.==
CCW in IL only happened because of court decree, and only “recently”. If Chicago pol’s had their way, there wouldn’t be a single legally-obtained firearm in city limits (but there would still be plenty of them in the hands of criminals). THAT’s what Pearson was talking about. Unless, he was alluding that African Americans are moving out of Chicago at an unprecedented rate, presumably due to the presence of violence and lack of jobs.
And Wolf, I used parentheses around the word recent because although it did happen several years ago, IL was still the last state in the US to enact its CCW law. Relative to the rest of the country, we’re definitely “recent”. I’ve said before that I’m not a “gun guy”, but I try to read the news daily, and some of it sticks in long-term memory, this being a case in point.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Jul 31, 18 @ 8:13 am:
While it’s nice you have personal definitions for words, if you want to communicate with other people you need conventional definitions. No English speaking person would know that recent means long ago but the last in a group to change.
But it’s moot, because Pearson was speaking in the present tense, not about five years ago.
Maybe he was lamenting on he rampant street crime without leadership strong enough or willing to curb it ? Residents who live by the creed “its the tax you pay when you live in the city” referring to any number of costly things one endures to live there.
==No English speaking person would know that recent means long ago but the last in a group to change.==
My thought is that language (word definition) is fluid with context - weather, climate, and geology being three examples of how the word “recent” can be interpreted differently. Since Pearson’s focus is gun laws (NRA), I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he differentiated Chicago, and Illinois, in that context. And, “recent”, as it pertains to gun laws, can easily encompass several years. Guess we have to agree to disagree.