For the liberal media elite, carrying a weapon is reserved for important reasons. You know: like for protecting politicians. It’s not for ordinary folks wanting to be able to defend themselves.
That was the clueless and condescending opinion expressed by Jonathan Capehart on his MSNBC show Sunday.
Capehart was commenting on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Bruen case, in which the Court found that the State of New York’s requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit were unconstitutionally restrictive. Under New York’s regulations, applicants had to demonstrate “proper cause”—and wishing to protect themselves or their property was deemed insufficient.
The Court ruled that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
That horrified Capehart, who said:
“There’s a phrase in the Supreme Court’s decision that just made my blood run cold. And that was, someone should be able to carry a concealed weapon for, quote, ordinary self-defense.”
Right! If people want protection outside the home, let them spend tens of thousands of dollars a year, like the members of The Squad. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her far-left cohorts spent a collective $325,000 on security in 2021.
Capehart invited comment from Democrat Congressman Ritchie Torres, who unwittingly demonstrated how useless and counter-productive were New York’s restrictions. He said:
“I live in the Bronx, which has seen a more than 200% rise in the number of shooting victims and shooting incidences. In my own backyard, I’ve seen three police officers shot, an 11-month-old child, shot . . . The Supreme Court has essentially held that cities like New York can no longer protect their residents from gun violence.”
Does it not occur to Torres that the spike in shootings he decried occurred while New York’s restrictive laws were in place? Not to mention while Democrats hold the mayor’s office and more than 90 percent of the city council seats. As for New York no longer being able to “protect their residents from gun violence,” it’s obvious that the city wasn’t getting that job done! All the more reason to recognize the right of ordinary citizens to protect themselves!
A second guest, Vanderbilt prof Jonathan Metzl, made another absurd argument. He cited a study in which people explained their desire to carry weapons in terms of their racial fears of being attacked by gangbangers or carjackers. But, according to Metzl, the people interviewed had not to date suffered such attacks.
That led Metzl to assert: “this idea of kind of imagining a racial other, which kind of ties into histories of gun ownership and race in this country, really have horrific effects not just about guns but about race.”
But surely the professor must realize that, every day, people are attacked for the first time by a variety of criminals. Should they be forced to go unarmed until suffering a first attack?
Capehart and his guests served up a classic example of liberal gun-think: wanting ordinary folks to go unarmed, and blaming their desire to protect themselves on racism.
Note: Until the age of seven, I lived with my family in a part of the Bronx now represented by Torres.
On his MSNBC show, Jonathan Capehart saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling that people should be allowed to carry arms for “ordinary self-defense” makes his “blood run cold” was sponsored in part by Progressive and Ensure.
Here’s the transcript.
The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart
10:19 am EDT
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Congressman Torres, I mean, you are a congressman from New York City. From the Bronx. How concerned are you about the implications of this Supreme Court decision?
RITCHIE TORRES: I’ve never been more concerned. The Supreme Court’s decision is going to deepen the epidemic of gun violence, which has become the leading cause of death of children and teenagers.
For me, gun violence is not an abstraction. I live in the Bronx, which has seen a more than 200% rise in the number of shooting victims and shooting incidences. In my own backyard, I’ve seen three police officers shot, an 11-month-old child, shot.
And so, the Supreme Court has made it so that masses of people can carry firearms in public, in a city as densely populated as New York. Which is a situation we’ve never seen before. And could have untold implications for public safety. The Supreme Court has essentially held that cities like New York can no longer protect their residents from gun violence.
CAPEHART: You know, there’s a phrase in the Supreme Court’s decision that just made my blood run cold. And that was, someone should be able to carry a concealed weapon for, quote, ordinary self-defense.
How many times have we seen stories about someone feeling that they were threatened, and they shot someone, and that someone was black, or brown?
JONATHAN METZL: Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of research, including a lot that I cite in my book, that talks about how, basically, it ties into implicit bias. The idea of how you feel threatened, who do you feel threatened about?
And they interviewed, there was a couple of studies that interviewed gun owners in Texas, and they said, why do you carry a gun? And the gun owners would say, well, I could pull up to a bodega, and a gangbanger could show up, or a carjacker or something like that.
And then the follow-up question was, has that ever happened to? And they were like, well, no, but it could. So, this idea of kind of imagining a racial other, which kind of ties into histories of gun ownership and race in this country, really have horrific effects not just about guns but about race.