Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


GUNS/RLTD Gun violence is rooted in white supremacy
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544

    Gun violence is rooted in white supremacy

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.884638ed2fbc

    Made by History Perspective
    Gun rights are about keeping white men on top

    It shouldn't surprise us that mass shootings have increased as minorities and women strive for equality.
    By Nathan Wuertenberg March 9

    Nathan Wuertenberg is a co-editor of the book "Demand the Impossible: Essays in History as Activism" and founder of the online journal "The Activist History Review."

    Gun violence is rooted in white supremacy. We can’t solve the first without understanding its connection to the second.

    Discussions of gun “rights” in the United States usually revolve around debated interpretations of the Second Amendment. But if we truly want to understand the influence of guns in our society, we need to center the debate in a much earlier period, one before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

    In Colonial America, gun ownership equaled power. More specifically, it meant the power to control the means of violence and use those means to suppress the voices of the disenfranchised. Throughout the 17th century, almost all the English colonies along the Eastern Seaboard passed legislation prohibiting women and slaves from owning guns and forbidding the sale of guns to native peoples. By the 18th century, gun ownership had become a defining feature of white masculinity in the English colonies and guns played an integral role in Colonial men’s public displays of that masculinity.

    The public training exercises Colonial men participated in as part of their militia service were central to such displays and offered opportunities for them to participate in competitions to demonstrate their martial prowess. In many cases, guns were not only central to these demonstrations but were the prize for victory. The commander of the militia in Henrico County, Va., William Byrd, noted in his diary that he made a practice of awarding pistols to the men who won the competitions that took place on militia days. Such guns thus acted as material manifestations of a Colonial man’s physical domination of his peers, augmenting his reputation in terms of property ownership and bodily prowess.

    But the main purpose of militias — North and South — during this period was to suppress slave rebellions, a constant fear of slaveholders throughout the institution’s existence. Militias’ sole responsibility in peacetime was to patrol local slave quarters for possible signs of subversion. When slave rebellions did occur, as in the 1739 Stono Rebellion in South Carolina, Colonial officials increased militia patrols for months and even years after the rebellions had been quelled.

    They also usually expanded the caches of guns held in Colonial capitals. In Colonial minds, those guns were key to preventing any future slave rebellions. In fact, for many of the men who became leaders of the Colonial independence movement, the final straw that pushed them toward independence was the British military’s decision to confiscate Colonial militia stores and use them to arm refugee slaves who fled their rebel owners.

    It was this culmination of their worst nightmares that the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. Their “right to bear arms” was the right of white men to exercise authority over black men and women by violent means if necessary, and their right to a “well regulated Militia” was the right to do so in large groups.

    Many of the individual laws that restricted the right to bear arms along racial lines remained on the books in various forms throughout the antebellum period. Even after the Civil War, when slavery ended and the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law to African Americans, white men did their utmost to ensure that gun ownership remained their prerogative. The Ku Klux Klan was notorious for, among many other things, confiscating weapons owned by newly minted black U.S. citizens, and prohibiting black gun ownership became a pillar of Jim Crow legislation.

    Even with the advances of the civil rights movement in the 20th century and the end of Jim Crow, the prohibition on black gun ownership remains a de facto feature of modern-day law enforcement practice. When Black Panther Party members in California armed themselves in the 1960s to patrol communities abandoned by local law enforcement, the State Assembly passed legislation repealing an earlier law that allowed the open carry of firearms (a move the National Rifle Association supported). The 2015 police shooting of Philando Castile, who was killed in Minnesota as he followed proper protocol by announcing he had a legal handgun in his vehicle, is but the most notable example in recent years of the criminalization of legal black gun ownership. The fact that the NRA, an organization eager to join the fray at the slightest hint that gun rights might be infringed upon, did nothing in response to his death reveals its assumption that gun ownership is a white domain.

    In a statistical sense, it is not far off. White men make up the largest percentage of gun owners (and are ahead of people of color and women by double digits). In the NRA, the breakdown is even more stark, with white men accounting for twice the proportion they do in the general population. They also account for the largest percentage of arrests involving gun violence. This is the case because our society has incentivized white male violence from the beginning and has identified guns as the most effective means of exercising that violence.

    This lengthy history means that when white men feel disempowered, they are primed to resort to gun violence to reassert their sense of authority. It’s no coincidence that the rate of gun violence, and mass shootings in particular, has risen in tandem with the expansion of rights and representation for people of color and women in recent decades.

    Mass shooters have routinely expressed white-supremacist views or motivations. The first mass shooter in U.S. history, Howard Unruh, was known to leave racist notes for his black maid and identified a Jewish pharmacist as his main target, because he claimed the man had overcharged him. The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, reportedly made racist remarks as they killed a black student. William Atchison, who shot two other students and then himself at a New Mexico high school last year, posted racist comments online for years before his death.

    Most recently, the suspected shooter in the Parkland, Fla. school massacre, Nikolas Cruz, was reportedly photographed with a “Make America Great Again” hat. The hat was new. The worldview that put that hat on his head and an AR-15 in his hands is not.

    281 Comments


    Nathan Wuertenberg is a co-editor of the book "Demand the Impossible: Essays in History as Activism" and founder of the online journal "The Activist History Review." Follow @nwuertenberg
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Swimming in sea quarks
    Posts
    3,767
    What a bunch of bullchit. The Author of that pos needs to get a refund on their education.
    Facts?? We don't need no stinkin facts...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544
    Oh, I think he got every bit of the indoctrination he paid for
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Swimming in sea quarks
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    Oh, I think he got every bit of the indoctrination he paid for
    That I won't disagree with.
    Facts?? We don't need no stinkin facts...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    34,946
    What a bunch of crap.

  6. #6
    So why are all the mass shooters mostly dems?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    "outside the box"
    Posts
    27,408
    Nathan Wuertenberg....you aint from around here is you?

  8. #8
    The world would be a hand holding, folk singing, mutually cooperative utopia if it weren't for White people.

    Everything bad is caused by White people - doesn't matter if it is Blacks shooting eachother in Chicago, or some black kid jumping off a bridge. Whitey's fault - always.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    White Mountains area, AZ
    Posts
    4,650
    Being taught at high schools and Universities everywhere. Blue pilling American kids. Commies in the making.

    They are all true believers, too. No doubts about what they've been taught, absolutely convinced that all previous history teaching was twisted propaganda by white men.
    Ring the bells that still can ring
    Forget your perfect offering
    There is a crack, a crack in everything
    That's how the light gets in.

    ("Anthem" by Leonard Cohen)

  10. #10
    No offense to Dobbin but this article reeked so strongly of horse**** I had to change laptops to continue my nightly reading.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544
    But he's teaching university level history classes... as an agent of change
    ==========================

    https://history.columbian.gwu.edu/nathan-wuertenberg

    Nathan Wuertenberg

    Areas of Expertise
    Social, cultural, political, and diplomatic histories of the Revolutionary War, US Indian policies, American memory and identity

    Nathan Wuertenberg previously completed an undergraduate honors thesis on the role of the American Revolution in the evolution of Quaker gender relations and reform movements in the early American republic and a Masters thesis on the influence of national identity in shaping United States Indian policies before and after the American Revolution. He has also conducted research on a variety of topics from crises of masculinity in modern popular culture to fears of the postcolonial ‘other’ in Marco Polo’s Il Milione. This research has been presented at a number of venues like the 2014 Society for Military History Conference, the 2014 and 2015 PCA/ACA Conference, the 2015 Southern Labor Studies Association Conference, the 2015 Mid-Atlantic Conference on British Studies, and the 2015 Society for History in the Federal Government Conference.

    Current Research
    Atlantic underpinnings of the American invasion of Canada in 1775

    Education
    BA, McDaniel College, Westminster, Maryland, 2012
    MA, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, 2014

    Publications
    Forthcoming Publications
    “Relics of Barbarism: Memories of Frontier Violence in the Trans-Appalachian West and the Indian Removal Act of 1830.” in Darren R. Reid, ed. The Making of the Trans-Appalachian West: Society, Culture, and Peoples, 1754-1832. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
    “From Knights to Knights-Errant: The Evolution of Westerns through Portrayals of Violence.” in David Schmid, ed. Violence in American Popular Culture. Vol. I. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Press.
    "Pacifists in the American Revolution." in The American Yawp, edited by Joseph Locke and Ben Wright. http://www.americanyawp.com.
    "Indians in the American Revolution." in The American Yawp, edited by Joseph Locke and Ben Wright. http://www.americanyawp.com.
    “Indians of the Southwest.” David Bernstein and Chris Magoc, eds. Imperialism and Expansionism in American History: A Social, Political, and Cultural Encyclopedia. Vol. I. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio Press.

    Distinctions
    SHEAR/Mellon American History Fellowship (2011), 1 of 10 selected nationwide
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Hoosier-at-heart
    Posts
    4,166
    https://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

    coming up now on Rense radio rebroadcast of hour 1

    topic:

    From South Africa - Karel Vorster
    The Black Communist Govt
    Stealing All WHITE Lands...
    No Compensation

    its some scintillating conversation, if you miss it, catch his archives

    they face odds of 40 to 1 with less than 4 million whites left.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by homecanner1 View Post
    https://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

    coming up now on Rense radio rebroadcast of hour 1

    topic:

    From South Africa - Karel Vorster
    The Black Communist Govt
    Stealing All WHITE Lands...
    No Compensation

    its some scintillating conversation, if you miss it, catch his archives

    they face odds of 40 to 1 with less than 4 million whites left.
    I was listening to Mark Collett and another guest talk about SA on Bre Fauchaux's channel (spell?). What really struck me was the claim that half the farm murders are "inside jobs." These are cases where the farm's own black employees and servants gave useful information to the attackers, and in one well known case, the guy was murdered by his own employees. The guest on the show said that Boer farmers see their employees as "family." The are always believed to be loyal.

    Big lesson in there for all of us.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    A rough neighborhood in Hell.
    Posts
    7,688
    somebody reading over my shoulder at the library said "This article should be titled 'A negro tries his hand at crayons.' "

    Of course, we don't go for that sort of blatant racism so I told him to sit his beer down & leave! done my part.
    If I was born in Kenya, I'd be President by now.

    *My fingers are slysdexic. Damn.*
    They're, there, their. There. I know the difference. My mind is miles and miles of thought ahead of my fingers and my fingers are peons. peons do sh!tty work.:D

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Purdy area, Western WA
    Posts
    28,445
    You would have to completely IGNORE CHICAGO and all the other violent black inner cities in order to come up with the load of utter BS that that article tries to sell. They make a big fuss about school shootings but they are NOTHING, a drop in the bucket compared to the number of kids and teens killed DAILY in these inner cities.
    In fact the reality says the overwhelming responsibility for murder, crime and violence lays heavily on the back of blacks, way, way, out of proportion to their numbers in society.

    In fact, if examined as a group, by race, I would not be surprised to discover that the proportion of blacks constructively, positively, contributing anything positive to society would be lower than any other race. I blame their culture and social and moral codes, almost completely destroying the truly NON-Christian blacks, their families and their futures.
    Last edited by ainitfunny; 03-14-2018 at 02:39 AM.
    You who SEEK revenge,or JUSTICE for the wrongs, crimes and sins done to you, will find it in the same place that God is freely handing out Mercy, At the Cross, where Christ died taking the punishment not only for your sins, but also for the sins committed against you by others!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cow Hampshire
    Posts
    16,392
    Quote Originally Posted by vestige View Post
    No offense to Dobbin but this article reeked so strongly of horse**** I had to change laptops to continue my nightly reading.
    Agreed - and some 70 odd percent of Chicago murders agree.

    All arms offer is a choice on how (and to whom) you use the tool on.

    He who pulls the trigger is ultimately responsible for the outcome, either in this world or the next.

    The article in the OP attempts to put the "aggrievement" result to today's discussion regarding the 2nd Amendment Right.

    If it wasn't guns, it would be the dollar (greenback), or the invention of writing, or the invention of (fill in the blank here.)

    No mention AT ALL of the true reason for lack of personal success.

    Because that would imply OWNERSHIP.

    Dobbin
    I hinnire propter hoc ecce ego

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hill Country Texas
    Posts
    15,597
    The liberals and the blacks desperately want to be on the right side, the moral side, the superior side, only they are not.
    Would someone please let me know how we have spun out of control?
    Has the captain let go of the wheel?
    Or could we please try to find a way to be a bit more kind?
    I see the road to tomorrow in the haze - Queensryche

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544
    "This article should be titled 'A negro tries his hand at crayons.' "



    -- https://nathanwuertenberg.com/about/
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  19. #19
    Couldn't stomach reading such BS this early in the morning. Ruins the whole day with indigestion.

    Communists pukes such as Nathan are all over our college campuses anymore and their constant call that "whites" are the reason for evil ill is why this country will soon be torn apart. We may end up in a war because of the races, but it will not be a "race" war. It will be a war with communists using race to instigate this country's demise. In the end, if the win, they'll kill the minorities that don't fit their agenda, just like they always do.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    149,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Yogizorch View Post
    So why are all the mass shooters mostly dems?
    Cuz.... muh Russia.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    149,988
    Quote Originally Posted by dstraito View Post
    The liberals and the blacks desperately want to be on the right side, the moral side, the superior side, only they are not.
    This...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    In CLE again
    Posts
    51,242
    Col Kurt, in his diatribe here:===> http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...-Civil-War-Too explains why "Team Kale and Vinyl" will NOT be ready and will not choose to fight.

    I disagree. Categorically and STRONGLY.
    Mookie War Creed
    "I am the Sword of my Family and Shield of my Nation. If sent, I will crush everything you have built, burn all that you love, and kill every one of you."
    Welcome to dar al harab -dar al kufre.


    Gentle reminder: It is entirely possible to think that generalizations are true and to judge each real live person you meet as an individual

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Almost Cuba
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Yogizorch View Post
    So why are all the mass shooters mostly dems?
    And either currently are, or in the recent past have been, on psychotropic medications?
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Maidenhead
    Posts
    26,060
    Gun violence is rooted in white supremacy

    Yeah, inner city Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia ect, are bastions of white supremacy and that is why the blacks and hispanics are shooting and knifing each other. How do they even let people like this write articles and pay them for publication? And then the TV 'news' stations and newspapers can't figure out why their businesses are all failing.
    What is the lake of fire? What is it's purpose? Is the lake of fire eternal hell? Is there any hope of escape for those cast into this lake?
    http://bible-truths.com/lake1.html

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Georgia
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroe View Post
    I was listening to Mark Collett and another guest talk about SA on Bre Fauchaux's channel (spell?). What really struck me was the claim that half the farm murders are "inside jobs." These are cases where the farm's own black employees and servants gave useful information to the attackers, and in one well known case, the guy was murdered by his own employees. The guest on the show said that Boer farmers see their employees as "family." The are always believed to be loyal.

    Big lesson in there for all of us.
    Now a days, no one is loyal it seems.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SE Georgia
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Hfcomms View Post
    Gun violence is rooted in white supremacy

    Yeah, inner city Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia ect, are bastions of white supremacy and that is why the blacks and hispanics are shooting and knifing each other. How do they even let people like this write articles and pay them for publication? And then the TV 'news' stations and newspapers can't figure out why their businesses are all failing.
    I would be more willing to listen to the argument that Gun Control is an attempt at Black genocide. It was the Democrats that controlled the guns in the south and blacks suffered. Democrats control the guns in Chicago, etc and who suffers the most, Blacks.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    washington co,oh
    Posts
    1,480
    what a very special snow flake

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroe View Post
    The world would be a hand holding, folk singing, mutually cooperative utopia if it weren't for White people.

    Everything bad is caused by White people - doesn't matter if it is Blacks shooting eachother in Chicago, or some black kid jumping off a bridge. Whitey's fault - always.


    Coming soon to Detroit, flying pyramids! Why, Chicago would be Wakanda West today if it weren't for all the white people, holding back black science and black...um...technological...advances...I can't say this with a straight face any more, I'm sorry.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Silver State
    Posts
    2,230
    Author says white men are the biggest percentage of gun owners. What is he using for statistics? Gun licenses? Legally recorded gun sales? Does he pretend that the guns black people use to shoot each other are all legal and recorded?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cow Hampshire
    Posts
    16,392
    https://history.columbian.gwu.edu/nathan-wuertenberg

    Nathan Wuertenberg previously completed an undergraduate honors thesis on the role of the American Revolution in the evolution of Quaker gender relations and reform movements in the early American republic and a Masters thesis on the influence of national identity in shaping United States Indian policies before and after the American Revolution. He has also conducted research on a variety of topics from crises of masculinity in modern popular culture to fears of the postcolonial ‘other’ in Marco Polo’s Il Milione. This research has been presented at a number of venues like the 2014 Society for Military History Conference, the 2014 and 2015 PCA/ACA Conference, the 2015 Southern Labor Studies Association Conference, the 2015 Mid-Atlantic Conference on British Studies, and the 2015 Society for History in the Federal Government Conference.

    Forthcoming Publications

    “Relics of Barbarism: Memories of Frontier Violence in the Trans-Appalachian West and the Indian Removal Act of 1830.” in Darren R. Reid, ed. The Making of the Trans-Appalachian West: Society, Culture, and Peoples, 1754-1832. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.

    “From Knights to Knights-Errant: The Evolution of Westerns through Portrayals of Violence.” in David Schmid, ed. Violence in American Popular Culture. Vol. I. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Press.

    "Pacifists in the American Revolution." in The American Yawp, edited by Joseph Locke and Ben Wright. http://www.americanyawp.com.

    "Indians in the American Revolution." in The American Yawp, edited by Joseph Locke and Ben Wright. http://www.americanyawp.com.

    “Indians of the Southwest.” David Bernstein and Chris Magoc, eds. Imperialism and Expansionism in American History: A Social, Political, and Cultural Encyclopedia. Vol. I. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio Press.
    You can be sure that everything Nathan does, everything he thinks, and everything he writes is "aggrieved" and trashes "whitey."

    I wish Nathan would come here and help Owner. Owner still looking for someone experienced with a shovel, and an interest in nature and "organics."

    I would step on his foot - just to hear the girly yell. I am sure he's not strong enough to push away.

    Sorry. Dreams of equine dominance.

    Dobbin
    I hinnire propter hoc ecce ego

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544
    The sad thing about the cuck who wrote the OP is that the work had already been done in an honest fashion.

    Long, but posting it all anyway.
    ===========================

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?ID=916

    The Racist Roots of Gun Control
    by Clayton E. Cramer

    This appeared in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 4:2 [Winter, 1995]. The printed form has different footnote numbering, and a few of the modern sources have been changed from electronic archives to printed versions of the same documents. (There may have been a very few minor changes in wording.)

    The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws - and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites.

    Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. This is not surprising, for blacks in the New World were often slaves, and revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the "dangerous" example that blacks could actually handle freedom often led New World governments to disarm all blacks, both slave and free.

    Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [ Thomas N. Ingersoll, "Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans, 1718-1812", William and Mary Quarterly , 48:2 [April, 1991], 178-79.] Because of fear of Indian attack, and the importance of hunting to the colonial economy, slave possession of firearms was at times a necessity in Louisiana. But the colonists had to balance their fear of the Indians against their fear of their slaves. As a result, French Louisiana passed laws that allowed slaves and free blacks to possess firearms only under very controlled conditions. [ Daniel H. Usner, Jr., Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783 , (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 139, 165, 187.] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [ Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History , 4th ed., (New York, Oxford University Press: 1991), 216.]

    Often the relationship between racism and gun control was direct and obvious. On other occasions, the connection was more complex. One example of this complex relationship between economic struggle, slavery, and possession of arms can be found in seventeenth century Virginia. The aristocratic power structure of colonial Virginia found itself confronting a political challenge from lower class whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack made this impractical; for all white men "were armed and had to be armedÖ" Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the upper class having to give up its privileges. [ Edmund S. Morgan, "Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox," in Stanley N. Katz, John M. Murrin, and Douglas Greenberg, ed., Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development , 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1993), 280.]

    In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but as the Revolution degenerated into a race war, existing fears increased in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the American slave states. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. [ Ingersoll, 192-200. Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the Making of America , 3rd ed., (New York, Macmillan Publishing: 1987), 81.]

    Restrictions on slave possession of arms in the North American English colonies go back a very long way as well. Arms restrictions on free blacks in slave states, while present, at least allowed the possibility of obtaining a license to possess a gun in one's home, or with enough good reason, even to carry a gun. (Whites were not similarly restricted.) Existing arms restrictions on free blacks increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [ Stanley Elkins, Slavery , (Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 1968), 220.] Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or leadÖ" The existing law under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. [ Eric Foner, ed., Nat Turner , (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall: 1971), 115.] But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. [ Harriet Jacobs [Linda Brant], Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl , (Boston: 1861), in Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ed., The Classic Slave Narratives , (New York, Penguin Books: 1987), 395-6.]

    To illustrate how extreme this fear of armed blacks had become, dogs were considered weapons. Maryland prohibited free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person, without even a provision for licensed ownership. [ Theodore Brantner Wilson, The Black Codes of the South, (University of Alabama Press: 1965), 26-30.]

    One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 Tennessee Constitution. Article XI, ß26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution read: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." [ Francis Newton Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming The United States of America , (Washington, Government Printing Office: 1909; reprinted Grosse Pointe, Mich., Scholarly Press: n.d.), 6:3424.] The 1834 Constitution was revised to: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence," [ Thorpe, 6:3428.] [emphasis added] It is not clear what else could have motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before the new Constitution was adopted, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is no evidence that this decision caused the change. [ Simpson v. State , 5 Yerg. 356 (Tenn. 1833).]

    Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. [ State v. Huntly , 3 Iredell 418, 422, 423 (N.C. 1843).] The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:

    That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor. [ State v. Newsom , 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844).]

    Elijah Newsom, "a free person of color," was indicted in Cumberland County in June of 1843 for carrying a shotgun without a license - at the very time the North Carolina Supreme Court was deciding Huntly. Newsom was convicted by a jury; but the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict, and the state appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Newsom's attorney argued that the statute requiring free blacks to obtain a license to "keep and bear arms" was in violation of both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution's similar guarantee. [ State v. Newsom , 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 251 (1844).] The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to accept that the Second Amendment was a limitation on state laws, but had to deal with the problem of the state constitutional guarantees, which had been used in the Huntly decision the year before.

    The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:
    That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [ Thorpe, 5:2788.]

    The Court asserted that: "We cannot see that the act of 1840 is in conflict with it... The defendant is not indicted for carrying arms in defence of the State, nor does the act of 1840 prohibit him from so doing." [ State v. Newsom , 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 254 (1844).] But in Huntly, the Court had acknowledged that the seemingly restrictive language "for the defence of the State" included an individual right. [ State v. Huntly , 3 Iredell 418, 422 (N.C. 1843).] The Court then attempted to justify the necessity of this law:

    Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character. Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals. [ State v. Newsom , 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 254 (1844).]

    The North Carolina Supreme Court also sought to repudiate the idea that North Carolina Constitution's Bill of Rights protected free blacks by pointing out that it excluded free blacks from voting, and therefore free blacks were not citizens. But unlike a number of other state constitutions with right to keep and bear arms provisions that limited this right only to citizens, [ Early state constitutions limiting the right to bear arms to citizens: Connecticut (1818), Kentucky (1792 & 1799), Maine (1819), Mississippi (1817), Pennsylvania (1790 - but not the 1776 constitution), Republic of Texas (1838), State of Texas (1845).] Article 17 guaranteed this right to the people - and try as hard as they might, it was difficult to argue that a "free person of color," in the words of the Court, was not one of "the people."

    It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 - then a year later declared that free blacks were not included - the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the close of the decade. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:

    The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! [ Nunn v. State , 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).] [emphasis in original]

    Finally, after this paean to liberty - in a state where much of the population remained enslaved, forbidden by law to possess arms of any sort - the Court defined the valid limits of laws restricting the bearing of arms:

    We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void... [ Nunn v. State , 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).]

    "Citizen"? Within a single page, the Court had gone from "right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys" to the much more narrowly restrictive right of a "citizen." The motivation for this sudden narrowing of the right - that blacks were not citizens - appeared two years later.

    The decision Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah (1848) was not, principally, a right to keep and bear arms case. In 1839, the city of Savannah, Georgia, in an admitted effort "to prevent the increase of free persons of color in our city," had established a $100 per year tax on free blacks moving into Savannah from other parts of Georgia. Samuel Cooper and Hamilton Worsham, two "free persons of color," were convicted of failing to pay the tax, and were jailed. [ Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah , 4 Ga. 68, 69 (1848).] On appeal, counsel for Cooper and Worsham argued that the ordinance establishing the tax was deficient in a number of technical areas; the assertion of most interest to us is, "In Georgia, free persons of color have constitutional rights..." Cooper and Worsham's counsel argued that these rights included writ of habeas corpus, right to own real estate, to be "subject to taxation," "[t]hey may sue and be sued," and cited a number of precedents under Georgia law in defense of their position. [ Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah , 4 Ga. 68, 70, 71 (1848).]

    Justice Warner delivered the Court's opinion, one portion of which showed the fundamental relationship between citizenship, arms, and elections, and why gun control laws were an essential part of defining blacks as "non-citizens": "Free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office." [ Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah , 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848).] The Georgia Supreme Court did agree that the ordinance jailing Cooper and Worsham for non-payment was illegal, and ordered their release, but the comments of the Court made it clear that their brave words in Nunn v. State (1846) about "the right of the people," really only meant white people.

    Finally, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court showed that it shared this understanding that citizenship excluded blacks, and because of the relationship between citizenship and the carrying of arms:

    It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.[ Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857).] [emphasis added]

    While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, on the frontier, the concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive." Unlike whites, however, free blacks or slaves required a license to carry weapons. [ Juliet E. K. Walker, Free Frank: A Black Pioneer on the Antebellum Frontier , (Lexington, Ky., University Press of Kentucky: 1983), 21. This is an inspiring biography of a slave who, through hard work moonlighting in the production of saltpeter (a basic ingredient of black powder) and land surveying, saved enough money to buy his wife, himself, and eventually all of his children and grandchildren out of slavery - while fighting against oppressive laws and vigorous racism. Most impressive of all, is that he did it without ever learning to read or write.]

    The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the problem of criminal attacks that any white person might worry about, but the additional hazard that free blacks were in danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery. [ Walker, 73.] A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement. [ Stephen Middleton, The Black Laws in the Old Northwest: A Documentary History , (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press: 1993), 27-32, 227-40, 309-14, 353-7, 403-4.]

    The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in provoking Republican efforts to get the Fourteenth Amendment passed. [ Michael Les Benedict, The Fruits of Victory: Alternatives to Restoring the Union, 1865-1877 , (New York, J.B. Lippincott Co.: 1975), 87. Francis L. Broderick, Reconstruction and the American Negro, 1865-1900 , (London, Macmillan Co.: 1969), 21. Dan T. Carter, When The War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South, 1865-1867 , (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press: 1985), 219-21. Eric Foner, Reconstruction , (New York, Harper & Row: 1988), 258-9.] Republicans in Congress apparently believed that it would be difficult for night riders to provoke the correct level of terror in freedmen who were returning fire.

    It appears that the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at the same time as these arms control laws, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [ Foner, Reconstruction, 200-1.]

    The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment developed a greater willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas. In Cockrum v. State (Tex. 1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives, but could not prohibit their carry. [ Cockrum v. State , 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402, 403 (1859).] Yet, by 1872, in English v. State, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions - and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid. [ English v. State , 35 Tex. 473, 475 (1872).]

    What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from the English decision reveals how racism permeated legal thinking:

    The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self-defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit... We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law. [ English v. State , 35 Tex. 473, 479, 480 (1872).] [emphasis added]

    Throughout the South during the post-war period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions and the Second Amendment were being narrowed, or simply ignored. The apparent goal of such laws was to intimidate the freedmen into an economically subservient position. By making the freedmen defenseless, employers could be more confident that intimidation would keep their hired hands "in line."

    Nor was the intent that led to these laws lost on judges in the North. In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun-while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

    I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [ State v. Nieto , 101 Ohio St. 409, 430, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).] [emphasis added]

    There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (Fla. 1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

    I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. [ Watson v. Stone , 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941).]

    There is a shortage of such forthright statements of racist intent behind modern gun control laws. But has the racist intent disappeared, or simply been recast into a more acceptable form? Robert Sherrill - at one time a correspondent for The Nation and a supporter of restrictive gun control laws - argued in his book The Saturday Night Special that fear of armed blacks was the major provocation of the Gun Control Act of 1968:

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns to but control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. [ Robert Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special , (New York, Charterhouse: 1973), 280-91.]

    Sherrill failed to provide "smoking gun" evidence for his claim, but there is no shortage of evidence of the level of fear that gripped white America in the late 1960s. The California Legislature adopted a major new arms law in 1967, for the first time prohibiting the open carry of firearms in cities. [ Assembly Office of Research, Smoking Gun: The Case For Concealed Weapon Permit Reform , (Sacramento, State of California: 1986), 6.] This law was pushed over the top by the Black Panthers demonstrating against it - by walking into the Assembly Chamber carrying "pistols, rifles, [and] at least one sawed-off shotgun." [ "Capitol Is Invaded", Sacramento Bee , May 2, 1967, A1, A10.] This of course pushed the law through, in spite of significant opposition from conservative Republicans such as State Senator John G. Schmitz. [ "Bill Barring Loaded Weapons In Public Clears Senate 29-7", Sacramento Bee , July 27, 1967, A6.]

    Another piece of evidence that corroborates Sherrill's belief that both liberals and conservatives intended the Gun Control Act of 1968 as race control more than gun control has recently been found. There are strong similarities between the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1938 weapons law adopted by Nazi Germany. [ Jim Simkin and Aaron Zelman, "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny , (Milwaukee, Wisc., Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: 1992), is a highly polemical work, but it does provide the full text (in both German and English) of the various weapons laws and regulations adopted by the Weimar Republic and the Nazis from 1928 to 1938.] This is no coincidence; one of the principal authors of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut. After World War II, Dodd was assistant to the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crime trials. [ Sherrill, 67.] Shortly before the Gun Control Act of 1968 was written, Dodd asked the Library of Congress to translate the 1938 German weapons law into English - and Dodd supplied the German text to be translated. [ Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, "The War on Gun Ownership Still Goes On!", Guns & Ammo , [May 1993], 30-31.] Dodd was not a Nazi; he had a reputation as an aggressive federal prosecutor of civil rights violations, and it seems unlikely that any sort of American Holocaust was intended. Nonetheless, it would not be surprising if Dodd found it convenient to adapt a law that had already proven its efficacy at disarming a minority group.

    Today is not 1968, so when proponents of restrictive gun control insist that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting questions that should be asked today. The most obvious is, "Why should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a concealed handgun permit?" Here in California, even the state legislature's research arm-hardly a nest of pro-gunners-has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males. [ Assembly Office of Research, 5.] Even if overt racism is not an issue, an official may simply have more empathy with an applicant of a similar cultural background, and consequently be more able to relate to the applicant's concerns. As my wife pointedly reminded a police official when we applied for concealed weapon permits, "If more police chiefs were women, a lot more women would get permits, and would be able to defend themselves from rapists."

    Another reminder of how racism and gun control remain intertwined is the warrantless searches of private residences for guns in Chicago housing projects in early 1994. (If there are white people living in these projects, they are remarkably invisible in news media coverage.) While these warrantless searches were finally blocked by a judge, the popular press were remarkably neutral in their coverage of the Clinton Administration's advocacy of such an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches. President Clinton, after his warrantless search policy was struck down, explained his goals:

    Finally, we're going to work with residents in high-crime areas to permit the full range of searches that the Constitution does allow -- in common areas, in vacant apartments and in circumstances where residents are in immediate danger. We'll encourage more weapons frisks of suspicious persons, and we'll ask tenant associations to put clauses in their leases allowing searches when crime conditions make it necessary. [ "Radio Address By The President To The Nation", Saturday, April 16, 1994, ftp'ed from whitehouse.gov.]

    The "frisks of suspicious persons" are a longstanding tradition used against black Americans. Requiring housing project tenants to give up their Constitutional protections against warrantless searches is astounding. Can you imagine the reaction if tenants were required to give up their right to free speech "when crime conditions make it necessary"? It is hard to imagine the government attempting something similar in a white suburb - at least, until the courts first find it Constitutional in a black ghetto.

    The case might be made that the government attempted to make the tenants safe by unconstitutional means - that the intentions were good, even if the methods were wrong. But even for this "special case" of housing projects, there are profound inconsistencies in the policy. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, in a press conference on February 4, 1994, attempted to justify the warrantless searches as protecting the tenants of these crime-ridden projects. But by Cisneros' own admission, "Crime statistics show that public housing residents are not to blame for the reign of terror." Large majorities of those arrested in housing projects were nonresidents. It is therefore all the more amazing that the residents, who would presumably have much to fear from these armed nonresident criminals, are the ones that the Clinton Administration seeks to disarm. [ "Press Briefing by the Vice President, Secretary Henry Cisneros, Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, Attorney General Janet Reno and Director of Drug Policy Lee Brown", February 4, 1994, ftp'ed from whitehouse.gov.]
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544
    CONTINUED-
    =============

    If we examine these Clinton Administration policies as a pragmatic response to crime, we must ask: why disarm the likely victims of the criminals? But if we consider these inexplicable policies as the latest symptom of racist attitudes about violence, then these policies make much more sense.

    Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to promote openly racist laws, and so the question might be asked: "What is the relevance of racist gun control laws of the past?" My concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the rhetoric in support of such laws was that "they" were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

    Even today, with open racism unacceptable in the mainstream of American politics, gun control still looks suspiciously concerned with issues of race. The Crime Bill of 1994, passed after a bruising fight in Congress, was opposed by an unlikely coalition in the House: most Republicans, some conservative Democrats, and many black Democrats. The primary concern of the two first factions appears to have been the assault weapon ban. Black Democrats were concerned that the death penalty provisions would disproportionately execute blacks.

    The assault weapon ban provisions of the Crime Bill certainly reflected a widespread fear of armed inner-city blacks, with much of the rhetoric devoted to the dangers of these guns in the hands of "gang members" and other code phrases for poor blacks. But as a number of careful studies have found, "assault weapons" are seldom criminally misused. [ Gary Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), 75. ] A Wall Street Journal editorial chided Congress for passage of a ban that, under the most charitable assumptions, would reduce murder and other violent crimes by tiny fractions of 1%. The Trenton, New Jersey assistant chief of police testified before Congress that his officers were more likely to confront an escaped tiger than a criminal with an assault weapon. [ "What Is an Assault Weapon?", Wall Street Journal , August 25, 1994, A12.] Crime control wasn't the motivation for the assault weapon ban.

    Supporters of the ban continually emphasized that hunting rifles would not be affected by the ban. Was this a subtle way of saying that the sort of guns owned by white Americans would not be affected? Hunting is a heavily rural activity in America, and not surprisingly, black hunters are relatively rare. Similarly, an argument advanced by some pro-ban members of the Congress (notably Senator Campbell of Colorado) was that the law only affected new manufacturing - existing owners could keep their guns. If the similar 1986 ban on new machine gun manufacturing is any indication, the net effect of such an assault weapon ban will be to dramatically increase the price of existing weapons, further removing them from the financial reach of the poor, who are disproportionately black.

    What are the policy implications of restrictive gun control today? Increasingly, it isn't aimed just at black people, or at the poor, but at the middle class. The forces that push for gun control are heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage has a certain worrisome validity to it.

    Another point to consider is that under the American legal system, certain classifications of governmental discrimination are considered constitutionally suspect, and these "suspect classifications" (usually considered to be race and religion) come to a court hearing under a strong presumption of invalidity (.e.g, a law that made distinctions based on race, even if the distinction was nominally race-neutral in its effect). The reason these are "suspect classifications" is because of the long history of governmental discrimination based on them, and because laws based on these classifications often impinge on fundamental rights. [ Thomas G. Walker, "Suspect Classifications", Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States , (New York, Oxford University Press: 1992), 848.]

    In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminates based on race.

    Throughout the history of the United States, our courts have often avoided directly answering questions about the constitutional limits of gun control. As we have seen, this was sometimes done by insisting that "right of the people" didn't include black people. Another strategy popular in the slave states was to claim that as long as open carry of a firearm was legal, then the state could prohibit or regulate concealed carry of a firearm.

    Yet another strategy was to dispute what "arms" were protected. The New York courts upheld the Sullivan Act, that licensed the possession of handguns at home, on the basis that handguns were not a Constitutionally protected arm - unlike a rifle or a shotgun. Such decisions have usually insisted that only "arms of the soldier" were protected by the Second Amendment, or the state constitution's equivalent provision.

    From U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) (a decision that emasculated the Ku Klux Klan Act), the U.S. Supreme Court has claimed that the Second Amendment is a limitation on the federal government only, not on the state governments. This argument has been accepted by most (but not all) state supreme courts. [ Generally, see Clayton E. Cramer, For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent & Judicial Interpretation of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms , (Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishing, 1994).]

    These sort of question-begging approaches will not be available to the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases that will come before it shortly. The assault weapon ban in the 1994 Crime Bill prohibits new manufacture of a category of weapons that is more clearly protected by original intent and existing precedents than any other category of common privately owned arm: arms with a primarily military function and appearance. Unlike Morton Grove's handgun ban, or California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, this law is federal, not state. Fourteenth Amendment incorporation is not necessary for the Crime Bill's ban to be contrary to the Second Amendment.

    Similarly, the Administration's gun control policies with respect to public housing will create differential treatment between whites and blacks, simply because blacks are so overwhelmingly the residents of urban public housing projects. Will the Supreme Court apply the same reasoning to the Second Amendment that they have with the First Amendment? Or will they continue a tradition of winking at the Second Amendment, because the underlying policy of gun control is based on racist assumptions?

    Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a telecommunications manufacturer in Northern California. His first book, By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine, was published in 1990. For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent & Judicial Interpretation of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms was published by Greenwood Publishing Group in 1994. He recently completed his B.A. in History from Sonoma State University.





    QUOTES TO REMEMBER
    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)


    COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
    If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

    NOTICE: The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of KeepAndBearArms.com.
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    5,937
    The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws - and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites.


    FECAL MATERIAL spread incredibly WIDE and unbelievably THICK a concept I'm sure the TARD-in-laws and my youger supertard snoflake sister will repeat at their earliest opportunity
    ďSo then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.Ē REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,544
    No ... Clayton Cramer is correct. HISTORICALLY correct. DOCUMENTED as such.

    Not the pee cee BS the OP is spewing.
    The wonder of our time isnít how angry we are at politics and politicians; itís how little weíve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Amongst the Gentle People
    Posts
    6,214
    Thank you for posting about gun control and Jim Crow laws. This so called professor is a lying shit-bag.
    Go to Church. Pray.
    "Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice" ....Psalm 68

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    3,392
    The author is ignorant of human biology and anthropology.............all humans are tribal.........the whole of human evolution saw 90% of our existence spent in small tribal hunter/gatherer groupings.........we have a hardwiring as a result of being distrustful of strangers and strange situations through most of our time spent on this planet.........our expanding to city/states and later nation states of cooperation trust and care with each other is a new development in our history barely more than 10,000 years old.

    As a result, being tribal means we have the potential for violence towards those outside of our group....even if it is artificially produced by society/culture........think of rival sports teams for example.

    Now where this author gets everything wrong is this............Whites have a higher level of social/organizational structure due to their environmental pressures (less temporal climates) in their evolutionary path.........therefore they are more efficient in managing the technological application of a discovery........so they took gun power (invented by Asians) and its potential to a whole new level which become a more effective killing machine.......

    If Blacks and Browns could have accomplished that they would have.............but the didn't so Whites had the technological advantage to be able to kill and destroy in mass where other races couldn't.....(however Asians show similar evolution to Whites and are catching up) ..its not because Whites are more violent.........but simply they are more advanced and efficient at killing that gives them the illusion they are worse than the "noble savage" Blacks and/or Browns........

    This author is ignorant of this.......

  37. #37
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    149,988
    temperate, not temporal.

    FYI

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by homepark View Post
    Thank you for posting about gun control and Jim Crow laws. This so called professor is a lying shit-bag.
    Thank you for saying what I was attempting in my post.

    In this particular case the terminology you provided is considered most eloquent and appropriate.

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroe View Post
    The world would be a hand holding, folk singing, mutually cooperative utopia if it weren't for White people.

    Everything bad is caused by White people - doesn't matter if it is Blacks shooting eachother in Chicago, or some black kid jumping off a bridge. Whitey's fault - always.
    Yep

    Just look at the peace loving Muslims - Africans - Asians - Mexicans.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Amongst the Gentle People
    Posts
    6,214
    The only thing that would motivate such fiction as the op, is guilt. It is an unconscious desire to change the 'progressive' past to feel better about themselves. Perhaps it is me, as I am a recent descendent of willing immigrants. I just don't feel any collective guilt at all. I find it doubly interesting that these self same progressives talk about Christian Mythology. WTF? If the op article is not mythology, I don't know what is, and I studied ancient languages and mythology. Even got degrees in them when you still had to read it in the original language and cite authors going back over 2000 years. I know, I must be a dinosaur.
    Go to Church. Pray.
    "Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice" ....Psalm 68

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.