Philadelphia – demonstrate brotherly love by making crime easier for the disadvantaged to commit

By Nathan Barton
Thanks to Scott for passing this one on.

Information Liberation (seriously, that’s the website’s name!) tells us that Democrats who are “people of color” (and their allies and supporters and instigators) are demanding that bulletproof Plexiglas barriers in stores must be removed as they are demeaning and disrespectful to the majority African-American population of the city.

Indeed, a law mandating their removal has already been approved by a City Council committee.

These barriers are installed in shops and stores in high-crime areas, to protect clerks from physical attack (including being shot, stabbed, and grabbed and pulled over the counter by robbers) and to protect items for sale from being stolen.

I’ve seen such barriers installed in convenience stores in various cities, including many in high-crime areas and many where there some potential vulnerability (isolated locations, high-traffic areas, etc.) has been identified by the store’s security and protection specialists.

This comes across, of course, as Democrats (Tranzis) concerned that many of their constituents will be denied job opportunities and income-replacement by not being able to rob many locations and steal food, booze, and cigs – as well as being denied the enhanced self-esteem of demonstrating what mean m-f- they are.

Obviously, the politicians’ concern is not for the convenience store and other shop employees, who although a majority are black or other “minorities,” have steady jobs and presumably a higher (legal) income than those who are forced by the evil machinations of racist business owners, landlords, and government officials to resort to bullying, mugging, robbery, shoplifting, and other ways to be able to survive and maintain at least a minimum standard of living (enough booze, recreational pharma, junk food, and sex) and hold their heads up high in front of their gangbanger peers.

And it is obviously very demeaning and disrespectful – even racist – to try and deny these people in Philly the same privileges and opportunities for theft and abuse that Hollywood celebrities, politicians, and other perverts and predators have. Clearly, to remove barriers to opportunities to improve their lot is showing the brotherly love for which the city is named. But it doesn’t come across as exactly a sympathetic approach to many people.

Of course, heaven forbid that these store clerks have the means to protect themselves, such as “allowing” them to be armed – both to deter attacks and robbery AND to be able to defend themselves if (when) it happens. Especially given that the “disadvantaged” people eager to improve their lot are able, somehow, to afford guns of their own, but have to steal food and beer and condoms (assuming that they bother with such).

Mama’s Note: I highly doubt most of these criminals actually purchase their guns, at least not on the open market. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, at some point, some many long years in the past. They may buy stolen guns, or steal them on their own of course.

It is not, of course, just the policy of the municipal government of Philadelphia (including its police force) to disarm potential victims (and thereby guarantee that many of them will BECOME victims). It is generally corporate policy as well – many chains of supermarkets, convenience stores, liquor stores, and the like demand that their employees give up their basic human rights as a condition of employment. Rights like self-defense. And all too often, to life. They would rather see their workers killed or wounded than stand up to public pressure and especially the pressure of the powers-that-be to keep people disarmed. You can be sure that if this stupid law passes in Philadelphia, that the vast majority of businesses will quickly remove even the little protection afforded by Plexiglas and pass-thru windows and drawers.

The FedGov is tacitly an accomplice to this disarmament, if for no other reason than that the court system refuses to take a stand on the clear requirement in the Constitution to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Philadelphia – demonstrate brotherly love by making crime easier for the disadvantaged to commit

  1. beau says:

    the basic issue, as i see it, is a property rights issue.

    who own’s the property? the city and pols, or the one whose name is on the deed?

    if the city and pols own the land and the business, the pols can remove the barriers described.

    on the other hand, if the city and pols do NOT own the land/business, then the pols demanding this are simply tyrants, charlatans and criminal co-conspirators. tyrants because they have shown they have no respect for private property, or individuals, charlatans for putting individual lives at stake for political theater and co-conspirators for forcing owners to remove a safety device that protects owners from thieves and armed robbers/murderers making it easy for criminals.

    my belief: philadelphia pols are tyrants, charlatans and conspirators to criminal behavior who have thrown race into the overall picture to appeal to the stupid to ‘justify’ what they are demanding. they all suck.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      Why should the city and the politicians “own” anything? Tyrants want POWER, that is CONTROL. And they are more than happy to impose that on anyone, whoever supposedly owns the property. In a very real way, any individual forced to pay “taxes” on their property does not actually own it at all. They’re merely paying rent.


      • beau says:

        asking if the ‘city’, or the ‘pols’, own the business was to bring to mind exactly who does own the business and who does not, since ‘cities’ and ‘pols’, as politicians, own nothing. that sentence was a literary way of impressing upon the reader who does, in fact, own the business and who, in fact, is the usurper, the despot, the tyrant in this issue.

        agree that EVERYTHING that has a property tax is, in the end, rented from the state and that, from that perspective, no one ever really ‘owns’ anything as long as such a system is in place.

        the episode annotated in the original is a show of NAKED POWER with a desire to CONTROL by an authoritarian with no concept of property rights. that such a troll can arise in Philadelphia, with that town’s American History, is shameful, but not shocking.

        to put it quite simply, that troll wanting to pass that abomination just plain sucks.


      • MamaLiberty says:

        Indeed. Without self ownership, autonomy, there truly is no private property. Without self responsibility, self control, there is no peace. And where people fight to control each other, there will be no prosperity OR peace. It just doesn’t seem possible that so few understand that. Or can see it at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s