Gun Control and Racism

[Mr VJP]

[table]    [tr]  [td]Friday, July 01, 2011[/td][/tr]  [tr]  [td] [/td][/tr]  [tr]  [td]  Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, newly appointed by anti-gun Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has wasted no time in sharing his views on Chicagoans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. Less than a month after his approval by the City Council, McCarthy attended a service at St. Sabina’s Church (a parish led by anti-gun extremist Father Michael Pfleger) and made a speech claiming that a lack of restrictive gun control laws is “government sponsored racism.”

Those with a better understanding of history will find themselves confused trying to interpret McCarthy’s logic, as decades of scholarship have proven just the opposite; that gun control, rather than its absence, has often been used as a means of government sponsored racism.

In his 1995 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy article, “The Racist Roots of Gun Control,” Second Amendment scholar Clayton E. Cramer outlines the historical case that “racism underlies gun control laws.” Cramer notes that racist gun control in America stretches as far back as 1751 with a French law in the Louisiana territory that required colonists to “‘f necessary,’ beat ‘any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.’”

Though Superintendent McCarthy might be excused for not looking that far back, he should certainly be aware of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.  In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that in the years preceding the Civil War, “Many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply the prohibition to free blacks as well.” After the Civil War, little improved.  Justice Thomas writes: “Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms… Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites.”

Other Reconstruction Era (and later) laws were less candid. For example, an 1870 Tennessee law barred the sale of all but the most expensive pistols, effectively disarming newly freed blacks and the poor.  New York’s Sullivan Law of 1911, requiring a permit for handgun possession, was largely targeted at Italians and other disfavored immigrant groups. (That law is still on the books.)  And the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama under a similar discretionary permitting law—even after his house had been bombed.

We suggest that in the future, Superintendent McCarthy might do a little more research before conflating respect for a fundamental individual right with its antithesis, government-sponsored racism.[/td][/tr][/table]

[DMC]

Democrats / Liberals portray everything they oppose as "racist". The charge of racism doesn't have to make any sense, just the charge is enough to sway a lot of the sheep out there, and it gets them the Black vote as a bloc.

DC

[virgil]

I think you are purposely taking these statements out of context in order to villify your opposition again.  The laws from the 1700's and 1800's restricting blacks from possessing weapons were clearly intended to ensure that they would be unable to defend themselves or to fight for equal rights.  Gun control efforts today have no racial motives- they are intended to make society safer for everyone.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I doubt VJP wrote the article. He isnt taking anything out of context, if you actually read this article, it clearly states that Clayton E. Cramer was the one to originally write the article titled “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”, so if you are going to address anyone for taking anything out of context, you should be taking issue with Mr Cramer. I do understand that you are just acting like you usually do though, ya know, shooting the messenger. Pun may or may not be intended.

Gun control efforts today are nothing more than a power grab by the anti-gun lobby. There are plenty of laws making real gun crimes illegal already.

[virgil]

  I doubt VJP wrote the article. He isnt taking anything out of context, if you actually read this article, it clearly states that Clayton E. Cramer was the one to originally write the article titled “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”, so if you are going to address anyone for taking anything out of context, you should be taking issue with Mr Cramer. I do understand that you are just acting like you usually do though, ya know, shooting the messenger. Pun may or may not be intended.

Gun control efforts today are nothing more than a power grab by the anti-gun lobby. There are plenty of laws making real gun crimes illegal already.    Nowhere in my post did i suggest or imply that vjp wrote the article.  That's why i said that he was taking it out of context.  I took it up with vjp because he re-posted the article and misrepresented some of it's references to further his position.  Your post and insults toward me are just you acting as you usually do- trying to side with vjp, but not having the brains to write a coherent post.  Go back to sleep.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Nowhere in my post did i suggest or imply that vjp wrote the article.  That's why i said that he was taking it out of context.  I took it up with vjp because he re-posted the article and misrepresented some of it's references to further his position.  Your post and insults toward me are just you acting as you usually do- trying to side with vjp, but not having the brains to write a coherent post.  Go back to sleep.

You didnt directly say he wrote the article, but he misrepresented nothing, as he did not add anything to it. He simply copied and pasted it, therefore you need not take anything up with him, as he is merely relaying the message. I did not insult you in any way, just stated a fact. Obviously you dont pay much attention, because I am not and do not stick up for VJP, and dont necessarily even agree with this article. He and I have had quite a few differences in opinion on things, including gun laws, so before you sit there and basically call me a sheep,  pull your head out of your ass and get your facts straight. I see your tactic of throwing insults instead of facts is spot on, yet again.  :

[nyantler]

Gun control efforts today have no racial motives- they are intended to make society safer for everyone.

LOL.. I see that you are part of the "flock" believing that gun laws are for the safety of everyone. How you sheep allow the anti-gunners to make you believe this Horse$* is beyond me... I guess weak minds are easily manipulated

[virgil]

LOL.. I see that you are part of the "flock" believing that gun laws are for the safety of everyone. How you sheep allow the anti-gunners to make you believe this Horse$* is beyond me... I guess weak minds are easily manipulated

Guess we'll have to take your word for it- you seem to be an expert on weak minds.  As far as the sheep comment- following lock step w/ the NRA and gun nuts doesn't make you any less a sheep.  It just makes you more of a wingnut.

If you do not believe that these laws are intended for the purpose of public safety, what do you think is the motive?  I'm not asking if you believe that passing these laws or closing the loopholes will solve any problems; I'm asking what you believe these efforts are intended to accomplish.

[Mr VJP]

They are intended to disarm as many citizens in America as possible and remove as many firearms from US citizens hands as possible.  That is what the anti's believe we make us all safer.  The trouble is, every place, and every time it has been done, people were far less safe, being unable to defend themselves at all, and crime rose dramatically.  There are many instances worldwide that prove this case even today.  But many Americans do not believe it because they haven't looked into it at all.

[nyantler]

LOL.. I see that you are part of the "flock" believing that gun laws are for the safety of everyone. How you sheep allow the anti-gunners to make you believe this Horse$* is beyond me... I guess weak minds are easily manipulated

Guess we'll have to take your word for it- you seem to be an expert on weak minds.  As far as the sheep comment- following lock step w/ the NRA and gun nuts doesn't make you any less a sheep.  It just makes you more of a wingnut.

If you do not believe that these laws are intended for the purpose of public safety, what do you think is the motive?  I'm not asking if you believe that passing these laws or closing the loopholes will solve any problems; I'm asking what you believe these efforts are intended to accomplish.

They are attempts to get guns out of the hands of as many people as possible... unfortunately those people are law abiding gun owners not criminals.. the anti gunners know that the laws don't make people safer and they really don't care.. as long as they restrict people from owning guns... as a matter of fact I feel less safe knowing they are trying to restrict my gun ownership.

[Doc]

If you do not believe that these laws are intended for the purpose of public safety, what do you think is the motive?  I'm not asking if you believe that passing these laws or closing the loopholes will solve any problems; I'm asking what you believe these efforts are intended to accomplish.

I am surprised that one who constantly parrots back the mantra of every anti-gun organization across the country could be confused about the actual purposes of harrassment style gun laws. Your people have been pushing them for decades and you all really do understand the real purposes of those laws, and you also understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with effective public safety.

[nyantler]

If the laws actually did anything they were suppose to do they would be much easier to swallow even for a staunch gun advocate like me... they just simply do not do anything to reduce crime or make people safer, and they do nothing to help preserve our 2nd amendment rights.

[virgil]

I am surprised that one who constantly parrots back the mantra of every anti-gun organization across the country could be confused about the actual purposes of harrassment style gun laws. Your people have been pushing them for decades and you all really do understand the real purposes of those laws, and you also understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with effective public safety.

My people?  I'm not affiliated with, or even aware of, any anti-gun groups.  However, i do believe that the intent of gun control legislation is to make the public safer.  All of you guys have stated that the intent is to simply take your guns away.  But, my question remains... why do you think that gun control advocates want to limit the number and certain types of guns available?  Why do they want to 'take away your guns'?  We can debate indefinitely as to whether or not previous gun control laws have been effective.  The reason that I am curious about such staunch opposition of any and all gun control legislation is that paranoia and distrust seems to play a role.  I have no reason to believe that there cannot be sensible gun control laws without fear that someone is going to come and confiscate my hunting rifles.  I'm curious as to how so many of you guys equate gun control with the end of the world.

[Doc]

My people?  I'm not affiliated with, or even aware of, any anti-gun groups.  However, i do believe that the intent of gun control legislation is to make the public safer.  All of you guys have stated that the intent is to simply take your guns away.  But, my question remains... why do you think that gun control advocates want to limit the number and certain types of guns available?  Why do they want to 'take away your guns'?  We can debate indefinitely as to whether or not previous gun control laws have been effective.  The reason that I am curious about such staunch opposition of any and all gun control legislation is that paranoia and distrust seems to play a role.  I have no reason to believe that there cannot be sensible gun control laws without fear that someone is going to come and confiscate my hunting rifles.  I'm curious as to how so many of you guys equate gun control with the end of the world.

It is totally amazing how you are able to spout all of their talking points so perfectly without actually being a member of at least one of the anti-gun organizations. I have yet to find even one point on which you have stepped off the party line. So it must be one unbelievable coincidence.

Well anyway, there seems to be absolutely no difference between you and any one of those that never read a gun control law that they didn't love. By the way, are there any gun control laws that have been proposed in the last few decades that you actually don't support?

Since you used the word paranoia, let me explain that the best example of paranoia that I can imagine is a government or a bunch of "they're all out to get me" individuals and organizations that want to burden and harrass law abiding citizens with worthless laws based on their belief that these people cannot be trusted with private ownership of firearms. No, we are not all out to get you, and you really don't have to adopt a campaign of harrassing law-abiding, gun owners with a bunch of "just-in-case laws".

Further, in the rare instance that you can get an anti-gun organization member to speak with a bit of frankness and openess, and honesty, they will eventually admit that they have no intentions of merely controlling guns, but have true desires to make private ownership of firearms a thing of the past. And if it takes legal harrassments to do that, they are not above using that tactic as well. If somehow those facts have escaped your notice and understanding, you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention. That is if contrary to my suspicions, you do not already share those same goals.

[virgil]

Doc, you give yourself far too much credit for your ability to paint an accurate picture by using such broad strokes.  But, I'm glad to hear that you're amazed.  As a hunter, why would I ever support the idea of making private ownership illegal- what a stupid statement.  And, other than stating that I support the idea of common sense gun control legislation, what party lines are you referring to?  As i previously stated, i'm not affiliated with any group and couldn't quote any of their lines- i'm speaking for myself as a hunter, gun owner, and rational human being.  Also, I think it's funny that your definition of 'paranoid' accuses gun control advocates, or those who are open-minded to the possibility of gun control measures, as being paranoid and afraid that gun owners are 'out to get' them.  Face it, noone is coming to take away your guns.  We don't live in the wild west anymore.

[Mr VJP]

You seem to support any gun control law that will not effect you, but anyone else be damned.

As long as we can own hunting guns, you are happy.  I guess you don't own a handgun, or wouldn't mind losing it when they are banned.

You're idea of rational is very naive and very dangeous to all Amercans, and all of the rights they possess, because you are willing to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security.  Some have said you therefore deserve neither.

The people in America who are paranoid are the ones who do not feel it's citizens can be tusted with freedom. You seem to be one of them.

The wild west was never as dangerous as many cities in America are today.  At least in the past, men were legally allowed the right of self defense.  Answer this, what would you do if you had to defend your own life from an attack?  Would you want the right to defend yourself or do you think that would be a bad thing?

How do you defend yourself against a violent attack if you are disarmed by law?

[jasons75]

Leave the bill of rights alone.... Leave our given freedoms alone!

IMO. If you don't like the the basic principles on which this country was founded..... GET THE F*** OUT.

And that's all I have to say on that.

[Doc]

i'm not affiliated with any group and couldn't quote any of their lines- i'm speaking for myself as a hunter, gun owner

Maybe yes .....maybe no. I'm thinking, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... well you know the rest.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I'm not affiliated with, or even aware of, any anti-gun groups. 

Either this is an outright lie, or we have stumbled upon the cause of virgil's views on gun control. Ignorance of what is really going on.

[nyantler]

Doc, you give yourself far too much credit for your ability to paint an accurate picture by using such broad strokes.  But, I'm glad to hear that you're amazed.  As a hunter, why would I ever support the idea of making private ownership illegal- what a stupid statement.  And, other than stating that I support the idea of common sense gun control legislation, what party lines are you referring to?  As i previously stated, i'm not affiliated with any group and couldn't quote any of their lines- i'm speaking for myself as a hunter, gun owner, and rational human being.  Also, I think it's funny that your definition of 'paranoid' accuses gun control advocates, or those who are open-minded to the possibility of gun control measures, as being paranoid and afraid that gun owners are 'out to get' them.  Face it, noone is coming to take away your guns.  We don't live in the wild west anymore.

Which gun laws do you think are common sense????