Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Gen Z: Molon Labe

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who oppose banning [the sale or possession of] "semi-automatic" weapons (N = 2,575):

Have a white pill, fam. The generation with its back against the wall is the one that just might save us all.

Parenthetically, the scare quotes around semi-automatic in the opening sentence are partly editorial. Nearly every gun in the country not an antique is semi-automatic, but most non-enthusiasts don't know that. They hear the word "automatic" and think what is being referred to is some special class of military-grade weapon capable of mowing down an entire mob of zombies. They don't realize the hunting rifle in their neighbor's basement is a semi-automatic.

If the terminology was changed to something like "hunting rifles", the demographic gaps would likely remain similar, but opposition to banning would be higher across the board.

The school walkout movement is being driven by old vinegar-drinking scolds. The students are pawns. The little weasel who has been Hogging the spotlight is not a representative zyklon.

The correlation between gun grabbing and being long in the tooth holds among members of both political parties:

If there is hope, it rests in young men wearing red hats. White Republicans under the age of 30 are the demographic in strongest opposition to gun grabbing.


Anonymous said...

I am a little surprised by the results. I generally think of people over age 50 as being more conservative and realistic than the younger cohorts. They have not been as marinated in PC as the younger generations.

Anonymous said...

In my experience, a good deal of older folks are more likely to be Fudds and/or are the "I grew up around guns (e.g. shot a .22 once at my cousin's) and we don't need these semi automatic because it's not what my grandpa had" types.

Toddy Cat said...

I'm ashamed of my fellow Over-50's. What the Hell is wrong with these guys?

Black Death said...

I wonder how many of the surveyed individuals really understand the difference between automatic, semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles. Automatic weapons are already quite illegal, but that didn't stop Stephan Paddock, who made his own.

Sid said...

Toddy Cat,

The over-50s used to be idealistic but ultimately based Greatest Generation types. Hence all of those old jokes about "racist grandpas/uncles." Now they're Boomer cucks.

As time passes, I expect those old jokes will be replaced with those about "racist" nephews who got radicalized on the internet.

Just kidding. The left will laugh at people on their way out, but not at people rising up. For that, they will panic.

socalmike said...

BD - I agree. I don't think people understand the difference. Many of my students don't. But the ones who do, are opposed to a ban.

Audacious Epigone said...


I was, too, though looking around I see this isn't an isolated finding. NPR, of all places, reported something similar from Pew.


See the comment above yours, maybe. Beats me.

Black Death,

I'd guess around 10%, and that may be generous on my part. Throwing the word "automatic"--just like the word "assault"--scares normies.


Haha, well put!


There is hope, then!

Feryl said...

People get more cautious (and less violent) as they age. The peak of gun ownership was around 1980, when the average America was like 38 years old. Now the average America is at least 10 years older than that.

Crime in anytown, USA, peaked around 1980 (there was another spike, more localized to black ghettos, around 1990). Clueless liberals might claim that gun ownership caused the crime, when in reality all kinds of people bought guns in response to the elevated crime levels of the 70's.

Millennials have not had the same (negative) affect on public safety that young Boomers and X-ers did. People just aren't as scared of kids as they used to be, and thus, there's only a relative handful of people who fantasize about blowing away bad guys these days (most guns are owned by a handful of people). The new Death Wish movie is being attacked as distasteful by many people, whereas similar movies in the 80's and 90's 's seldom raised eyebrows because most people intuitively felt that a good chunk of youngsters were bad seeds who needed to be put out of their misery.

All the same, it seems to me that young people of any generation have better reason to arm themselves and prepare for a fight than older people, because.....Young people get into more trouble. But being that Millennials are less dangerous relative to previous generations of youth, I'd think that young Boomers and X-ers were even more concerned about being armed than today's young adults, thus why gun ownership has been declining.

Dan said...

I haven't said much about the gun debate but here are my thoughts.

(1) In one sense this debate is over and the Second Amendment has won. This is because the number of guns in private American hands is so enormous (thanks Obama!) that action that violent government action against the people is not possible. And these guns do not ever expire.

(2) On the other hand, the front (in my opinion) that continually needs to be fought is protection for people who legally use their weapons in self defense.

What is the point of having a gun if your defensive use of it lands you in front of a hostile judge or jury?

I think a big part of 2nd amendment rights is psychological. It helps men have a spine and stand up.

Rotherham could not happen in America because here men stand up, generally. I wish I could meet a white man from Rotherham, England so I could spit in their face. That is not something I would normally do to anyone, but the men of Rotherham are less than any other men on the planet.

Dan said...

Feryl wrote:

"The peak of gun ownership was around 1980, when the average America was like 38 years old. Now the average America is at least 10 years older than that."

The national median age in the United States is currently 38 as of 2015. The median age in Japan is 47.

Audacious Epigone said...


Indeed. I understand that bravado talk is cheap, so discount it as you will, but if it happened to my daughter, niece, or even a friend in the community, I'd kill the man responsible and the police would never find the body.

I assume Feryl is talking about the median age of whites.

Dan said...

AE -

Of course if the dads (and moms) of all those Rotherham girls cared in the first place, the girls wouldn't have even been available for grooming. I don't believe I have ever not known where my daughters are.

In every one of those 1000+ Rotherham grooming cases, the parents would have had no idea where their teenage daughters where for massive stretches of time. Parents at the level of reptiles, abandoning juveniles to the world such that a few might make it to adulthood. r-selection in the extreme, and among whites!

Feryl said...

In general, people are much older now than they were in the 70's and 80's. And yeah, that's even more true for whites. BTW, Japan itself went thru a period of (relative) wildness in the 70's and 80's, the late 80's game Double Dragon was partly the creator's own scrapes, and indeed the beat-em-up video game was entirely invented in Japan.

"In every one of those 1000+ Rotherham grooming cases, the parents would have had no idea where their teenage daughters where for massive stretches of time."

Full disclosure: I've never really done much digging into Rotherham. And I don't think we'll ever quite know just what was going with a lot of the victims, since such victims are prone to telling the most self-serving stories possibles, as are their families. It's likely that a lot of these people were proleish types from broken homes. A middle aged white woman at my work has a daughter in her late 20's/early 30's, and, well, ya know the drill......Has a kid out of wedlock with an absent black "father", can't hold onto a job, or a car, or place to stay, etc. Her mom also got divorced years ago, and she also has a son who seems to be doing better than his sister. The Boomer generation in the English speaking countries seem to be a train wreck, and their follies resound throughout the lives of their kids. GIs and Silents gave Boomers greater freedom and self-esteem than any generation had ever experienced, and look what happened. I remember a Gen X-er in the 90's saying that her generation grew up so fast because the Boomers still hadn't grown up.

Boomers and Gen X-ers have presided over the disintegration of the family, the community, etc. While also promoting PC and cultural Marxism. In Rotherham, we see the.....Regrettable intersection of decadent white generations and Leftist multiculturalism run amok.

IM experience, and going from stuff like the GSS, Gallup, Pew, etc., most Boomers and early Gen X-ers aren't all that ashamed of what they did to society, figuring that the benefits of extreme individualism and hedonism outweigh the drawbacks borne from the utter collapse of civil and traditional Western civ., and removal of behavioral restraints.

Later Gen X-ers (the ones who came of age after the early 80's) are much more concerned about limiting ruthless and unnecessary competition, imposing pre-1970 style restraints on behavior, and less concerned about obnoxious "rock star" posturing. Millennials fall into this camp, too. People born in the 40's, 50's, and 60's devoted themselves to shocking "the squares", while those of us born after circa 1970 are tired of "rebel" antics and mindless consumerism. 50 year old people who look 10-20 years older than their actual age, after spending decades eating too much, smoking too much, drinking too much, and screwing too much are a reminder that today's "older generations" are paying a price for "living large".

Feryl said...

"Indeed. I understand that bravado talk is cheap, so discount it as you will, but if it happened to my daughter, niece, or even a friend in the community, I'd kill the man responsible and the police would never find the body. "

Well, in defense of the Brit cult-Marxist parents.....To make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs.

Watching older movies, it's evident that in the 80's a lot of (Boomer) movie makers started inserting blacks into a lot of movies. Not leading roles, for the most part....But certainly as extras and "one scene wonder" type side characters. Now of course, Hollywood white liberals wouldn't actually let their children attend majority black schools. And Jews overwhelmingly do not date or marry blacks. Still........No matter the evidence, or experience, in regards to dangerous ethnic groups, so many whites would still rather keep their fingers crossed that we'll finally reach the point at which there are no longer ethnic differences.

I'm afraid that large scale economic/social/political problems will be necessary in order to kick the Western white addiction to multi-cultural schemes. Immigration into majority white countries was extremely low during the depression and WW2. California seems to be itching for secession/warfare against the US. Quarantining California is important, and should Trump win....Again!, it's possible that West Coast liberals would push the nuclear option of trying to secede, especially if Trump antagonizes them. In these scenarios, immigrants and their enablers might end up being concentrated in California while the rest of the country gets a much overdue break from expanding waves of diversity. I mean, imagine if all kinds of people, fearful of arrest for treason or not being legal citizens, flee to Cali, Mexico, or Canada.

America attained more and more territory for centuries, but nothing lasts forever. Hell, who thought in the mid 80's that Eastern and Western Germany would be united in 1991? California's recent crop of liberal politicians are now in an arms race to see who can be the most stridently against Trump. Remember when Chuck Schumer promised to work with Trump, and liberals threw crap at his house and shouted at him? Schumer is from Back East, where people have a better sense of history and are more pragmatic. Whereas Out West, efforts to re-introduce lawfulness and common sense to America are resisted the most.

Feryl said...

They hope to make progress toward that goal this year, and they were counting on a blue wave of enraged liberals to emerge in Tuesday’s primaries as a harbinger of victory in November. They even hope that their man Beto O’Rourke can drive Ted Cruz out of the Senate. »

Beto, huh? But his last name is O'rourke.

'Member Ralph Northam winning? What can the Dems do, HBD-wise, to compete in state elections?

Surname points (whites only):

Anglo-Scots (+3)

"ethnic" gentile (+2)

Jewish (+1)

Tribe points

White (+4)

Asian/dot Indian/Conquistador Hispanic (+2)

Mestizo (+1)

Black (-2)

Mohammedan (-5 if Arab and/or have recent immigrant background, -2 if legacy American black like Keith Ellison)

Gender points:

Male (+2)

Female (+1)

Masculinity points, if candidate is male

Alpha (+3)

Beta (+1)

Closeted homo (-1), Tim Kaine as a running mate made Dan Quayle seem macho in retrospect.

Military service

Yes, (+3)

No, (-1)

These ratings are applicable primarily to the Midwest and the South. Blank slatism is more common Out West, while people in the Northeast don't place as much of a premium on Anglo-Scots ancestry.

Audacious Epigone said...


IM experience, and going from stuff like the GSS, Gallup, Pew, etc., most Boomers and early Gen X-ers aren't all that ashamed of what they did to society

Same. The tendency seems to be to say something along the lines "SMH, I had nothing to do with it", followed up by a reflexive opposition to the decidedly non-individualist responses to fix the problems that excessive individualism created.

Feryl said...

Parenting is very important.

As much as you, or me, or anyone complained about the mommy and daddy culture wars of the 80's and 90's, it did serve a purpose. People born in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's often had absentee (emotionally if not physically) Silent or Boomer parents. These parents did little to set boundaries for their kids, or explain to them the negative consequences of going too far.

On the other hand, Boomer parents in the 80's and 90's taught their children that littering, for example, makes you a bad person. Cohorts who came of age in the 60's and 70's were "allowed" to find their own way, instead of being given moral guidelines. That's a powerful thing, the difference between parents not setting ethical (and thus behavioral) boundaries and parent's adamantly telling their kids that there is a well-defined good path and a bad path.

WRT taking responsibility for what's been done to society, it seems like people born in the late 40's-early 70's tend to boast about the good things they did, while assigning blame for the bad things to other generations, or the wrong kind of people in their own generation. If you bring up living costs and inequality, they might acknowledge these problems but they often don't acknowledge how they came to be: namely, the Me Generation not doing enough to stem the excesses of individualism. Which they could've done via travel restrictions, stronger labor movements, greater civic engagement, shaming of show-offey behavior (like building stupidly large houses, driving stupidly large vehicles, and shopping to feel better about one's self, and eating too much), etc.

Of course, people born over the last 40 or so years grew up with the Me Generation setting a terrible example, so we intuitively sense what went wrong and why it went wrong. The cultural and ethical battles fought by the Me Gen now seem terribly archaic and rather embarrassing. Yet they generally don't realize that 60 year olds still LARPing as "the rock and roll generation" is every bit as goofy and unhip to "kids" these days as retirees in the 1980's still wearing pressed/pleated khakis and loafers was to Boomers and X-ers back then. I heard Adam Carolla talking about how old people dressed like old people when he was growing up, but at some point along the way it stopped. I'd put that point at around the mid-90's, when early Boomers entered their 50's.

Feryl said...

Gen X parents favor an almost telepathic approach to parenting, compared to Boomers. Boomers never took anything for chance and didn't allow grey areas in the 80's and 90's. They were very vocal and certain about telling their kids the right "values". X-ers, on the other hand, prefer to quietly steer their kids, and most Gen X parents and their heavily Gen Z kids seem to have an unspoken and shared sense about the direction they go in

Parenting moved into a very hands-off approach in the 60's and 70's, then Boomers put their hands on everything in the 80's and 90's. Gen X-ers maintain a similar overall grip, they just don't sweat and grunt as much as Boomers did for the most part. Neil Howe did consulting for schools and administrators, and he told them that X-er parents would be easier to work with than headstrong and entitled Boomer parents. But he also warned that Gen X-ers could pounce and be very vindictive if they had good reason to believe that they or they kids had been seriously dissed or threatened. He called Boomers helicopter parents, and X-ers "stealth bomber" parents because they suddenly could intervene on behalf of their kids after weeks or months of being seemingly happy or indifferent about their kid's academic life.

Anonymous said...

Considering that "automatic" even prefixed with "semi" results in the perception of "machine gun". This could imply that Gen Z actually favors having machine guns be legal as they were before 1986. It would be helpful to ask questions about firearms knowledge.

What cannot be ignored is that another massacre before the election will likely spell the end of our rights. The Deep State will certainly attempt to brainwash more attackers. The left is already OK with removing due process when it comes to issues of sex crimes and gun ownership. The rudderless right should be expected to follow.

Anonymous said...

At Black death: machine guns are NOT just have to pay for the tax stamp on they will be 'registered' for future confiscation. Fact is, American's CAN own anything they want. I see no where in the Constitutions of these united States where a body of gov't apparatiks can 'ban' guns. But we let them and they did it. As a Veteran Marine Officer and a truly Constitutional Peace Officer-Deputy Sheriff, this country fails to understand the true reason for the 2A. It is to stop governmental tyranny by the use of violent force if need be and we are nearing that point. When, who knows. When Americans get sick and tired of the quickening tyranny forced upon them for the last 100+ yrs, but then again...that's how you boil a frog...Right? The indoctrination of generations of kids-Red Diaper babies, in our schools. V.I. Lenin-Give me a 4th grade class and the seeds I have sews will not be uprooted. Let me have the children for 8 yrs and they SHALL be Bolsheviks forever. “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as “A Pennsylvanian,” in “Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution,” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1
“The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

You only have the Rights you're willing to fight for.

Anonymous said...

"[Rights] are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power, without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice." --John Dickinson, A Warning to the Colonies (Of the Right to Freedom; and of Traitors), 1766
“A free people, [claim] their Rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” –Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
"The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our Rights, and the Rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Samuel Adams Wells, 12 May 1821)
"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee. May 8, 1825
"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments." --Alexander Hamilton, letter to James Bayard, 1802

Anonymous said...

"No country can be called free which is governed by an absolute power; and it matters not whether it be an absolute royal power or an absolute legislative power, as the consequences will be the same to the people."
--Thomas Paine, Four Letters on Interesting Subjects, 1776
And here’s what the Supreme Court has had to say on matters of Rights and the Exercise thereof;
“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the Supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it." --William Paterson, VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 1795

Anonymous said...

The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the united States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
- John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802-- Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)”
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” --Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p.442 (1886)
“No state shall convert a Liberty into a license and charge a fee therefore.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
“If the state converts a Right {Liberty} into a privilege, the Citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the Right {Liberty} with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)

Anonymous said...

“Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” -- Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 p.491 (1966)
“All persons are presumed to know the law, and if they act under an unconstitutional enactment of the legislature, they do so at their peril, and must take the consequences.” -- Sumner v. Beeler, 50 Ind 341, 342 (1875)
Meaning you can give up your Rights if want to, but you do so at your own peril.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Anonymous said...

So there is some historical references of the intent of George Mason and Tenche Coxe on the 2A as well as our other Founder's and some Stare Decisis right? Or “stare decisis et non quieta movere”. It’s a Latin legal term which translates as “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”. The left loves to banter the court decisions. Well there is some already established matters on it. Mason and Coxe were instrumental in writing the 2A as well as others. But NO MATTER what...the democratic uh...I mean the Communist Party USA will NEVER stop. They want total disarmament of the Citizens of these united States, leaving you to the men like me with badges and guns. And remember, it was police in eastern Europe under the Einsatzgruppen that were doing the killing when the Einsatz Kommandos couldn't bear it mentally anymore. I won't be part of any violation of my Oaths, of the many times I've taken them both as enlisted Marine and Officer and Deputy Sheriff. Amat Victorium Curem. Pro Deo et republicae.