I don't think pulling a gun on a cop ever works out for someone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is Gun Control in the United States Racist in Origin?
- Thread starter Manos: The Hans of Fate
- Start date
- Status
I don't think pulling a gun on a cop ever works out for someone.
SteveWinwood
Member
Why don't you just name these high population centers with no minorities and show us their laws. It would be a lot better than saying 'They totally exist!'
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
haha what a load of shit.
absolutely. racism still exists here.
i just dont see it as being as big an issue re: gun control as population density. if you live in a city where people are stacked on top of eachother for blocks into infinity, more people are going to get shot by idiots. of all "races". the residents of these places know this, and VOTE for stricter gun control.
lincoln county MT is different. glacier county MT is different. its just white dudes with their heads shaved who see obama on the news and say "fuck that nigger". i wouldn't hold these places up as ideals of what america should be.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Considering I've had my ass saved twice by an adult holding a gun I personally don't give a fig about a "study". When it's 3am in the morning and some crazy shit goes does I'm kinda not gonna give a fuck about a study when I'm trying to protect myself and wifey. It's a risk. Yes. There's definitely risks involved in gun ownership. I'll never deny that. But as a grown ass adult I weighed the risks of having it versus other concerns. And for me, I choose to own firearms. For protection and recreation. If you don't want to, that's fine. Don't.
If you want to just stay put and hope for the best with a cellphone and 911 20 minutes away go for it. But plenty of unarmed people get murdered every day. Somehow your study didn't show up and inform them that "Hey, you were more likely to survive without a gun" before they died.
Now in my previous living situation I was living with roommates and I chose NOT to own firearms because one of them had mental instabilities that I wasn't comfortable with.
The idea that there is a secret cabal of gun loving white people that are out to restrict the ability of minorities to buy guns is simply ridiculous. It's beyond that; it's nuts.
America used to be systemically racist. That doesn't mean current gun control advocates aren't just compassionate people that want the violence to stop.
Again, I'm for private ownership of guns for home protection, but if an argument needs racism brought in to bolster it, the person making that argument should rethink it.
America used to be systemically racist. That doesn't mean current gun control advocates aren't just compassionate people that want the violence to stop.
Again, I'm for private ownership of guns for home protection, but if an argument needs racism brought in to bolster it, the person making that argument should rethink it.
I mean, there are always going to be anecdotes about guns being positive - but very few things in life are all good or all bad.
But if we're talking about the overall ramifications of gun ownership in this thread... then maybe you should consider this 'study' - if not for yourself, for the sake of the discussion.
Maybe it'll help you understand where people are coming from when they say that minorities protecting themselves with guns doesn't seem like a good idea
But if we're talking about the overall ramifications of gun ownership in this thread... then maybe you should consider this 'study' - if not for yourself, for the sake of the discussion.
Maybe it'll help you understand where people are coming from when they say that minorities protecting themselves with guns doesn't seem like a good idea
What you're describing is basically mutually assured destruction. Of course, when so many others have a gun, you might need one. I'd rather live in a society where neither is the case.
Luckily, I actually do. Living in a country with <1/5 of the homicide rate of the US feels pretty good, man.
And I don't think anyone would argue Germany is a country without societal problems, so there have to be other reasons at play, too.
Mammoth Jones
Member
It's the fact that some believe THEY should be allowed to protect themselves with guns but minorities shouldn't. That's the problem I have. That's the root of racist gun control laws in the US.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'd love to live in that world too. But I don't live in hypothetical fantasy land. I exist in the world as it exists. And yea, Germany has um...had its share of problems, LMAO.
This sums up my feelings.
SteveWinwood
Member
Do I accuse you of dodging my question yet or do I wait for later?
This is just a flabbergastingly inane post. Your argument is it's okay if gun control laws don't prevent criminals from having guns, because criminals are safer with guns than ordinary people? You can't really believe this. Please tell me you don't.
I think Manos is almost certainly right -- gun control has all the classic marks of a Jim Crow law. Is it applied today in a racist manner? Almost certainly, again, because all our laws are -- but also because, in an ethnic enclave situation such as the one many African-Americans find themselves in due to systematized oppression, a localized group tends to assume the monopoly on violence; thus disenfranchised minorities will also be disproportionately violating gun laws. This doesn't actually make it distinct from other laws! Nor is it, intrinsically, an argument against gun control so much as an argument for social justice. But it's worth being aware of, and certainly not something that should be arbitrarily denied.
I wouldn't call Germany as it exists today "hypothetical fantasy land". And I'd also disagree with (and frankly feel a bit insulted by) your implication that current Germany is comparable to Nazi Germany. I'm talking about Germany in its current form with its current problems, but also advantages.
Jeez, man, it's only been fifteen minutes and you asked an extremely detailed demographic question. Manos didn't claim "no minorities," he claimed "small minority populations." I think that's pretty defensible!
SteveWinwood
Member
Mammoth said minorities.Jeez, man, it's only been fifteen minutes and you asked an extremely detailed demographic question. Manos didn't claim "no minorities," he claimed "small minority populations." I think that's pretty defensible!
Also Manos has accused me of dodging in less posts and time, which is probably the most annoying thing he repeatedly does. I'm just trying to spread the love!
I don't know the gun laws of any of these cities...
I guess it depends on your definition of control. Did Americans in the past try to prevent guns from getting into the hands of minorities? I can believe it. But does that relate to background checking for criminal records and proper licenses today? Is all gun control the same even if there are different intentions and different things being watched for or guarded against?
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'm not moving to Germany. So I live where I live. And the issues I have here are the issues I have here and I'm not going to pretend I live in Germany when my reality is different. I don't carry a gun and I honestly don't feel a need to. But I keep some in my home.
My point was no country is perfect so don't lord how wonderful your place is compared to someone else when in a discourse with them since where you're from is no paradise either. If that offends you please understand that wasn't my goal but I'm not going to back away from that point. Lord knows we Americans hear it all the time and people don't hesitate to point out our history and flaws. Learn to cope.
Messypandas
Member
Why can't you respond to the statistics without being a smartass?
Dreams-Visions
Member
Good thread and yes, racism was at the heart of early gun control laws. Most of the responses on page 1 are just baffling.
On the topic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...cret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true
The Secret History of Guns
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
THE EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.
The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement.
Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.
THE TEXT OF the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.
Gun-rights supporters believe the amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms and outlaws most gun control. Hard-line gun-rights advocates portray even modest gun laws as infringements on that right and oppose widely popular proposals—such as background checks for all gun purchasers—on the ground that any gun-control measure, no matter how seemingly reasonable, puts us on the slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament.
This attitude was displayed on the side of the National Rifle Association’s former headquarters: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “a well regulated Militia,” was conveniently omitted. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.
Although decades of electoral defeats have moderated the gun-control movement’s stated goals, advocates still deny that individual Americans have any constitutional right to own guns. The Second Amendment, in their view, protects only state militias. Too politically weak to force disarmament on the nation, gun-control hard-liners support any new law that has a chance to be enacted, however unlikely that law is to reduce gun violence. For them, the Second Amendment is all regulation and no rights.
While the two sides disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, they share a similar view of the right to bear arms: both see such a right as fundamentally inconsistent with gun control, and believe we must choose one or the other. Gun rights and gun control, however, have lived together since the birth of the country. Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state constitutional law. Today, 43 of the 50 state constitutions clearly protect an individual’s right to own guns, apart from militia service.
Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
OPPOSITION TO GUN CONTROL was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.
Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”
Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.” They bought some of their first guns with earnings from selling copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book to students at the University of California at Berkeley. In time, the Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir. Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank and driven it right up the freeway.
Along with providing classes on black nationalism and socialism, Newton made sure recruits learned how to clean, handle, and shoot guns. Their instructors were sympathetic black veterans, recently home from Vietnam. For their “righteous revolutionary struggle,” the Panthers were trained, as well as armed, however indirectly, by the U.S. government.
Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.
The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.
In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.
Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.
“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.
“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.
======================
pages more at link.
On the topic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...cret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true
The Secret History of Guns
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
THE EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.
The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement.
“The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.
Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.
THE TEXT OF the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.
Gun-rights supporters believe the amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms and outlaws most gun control. Hard-line gun-rights advocates portray even modest gun laws as infringements on that right and oppose widely popular proposals—such as background checks for all gun purchasers—on the ground that any gun-control measure, no matter how seemingly reasonable, puts us on the slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament.
This attitude was displayed on the side of the National Rifle Association’s former headquarters: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “a well regulated Militia,” was conveniently omitted. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.
Although decades of electoral defeats have moderated the gun-control movement’s stated goals, advocates still deny that individual Americans have any constitutional right to own guns. The Second Amendment, in their view, protects only state militias. Too politically weak to force disarmament on the nation, gun-control hard-liners support any new law that has a chance to be enacted, however unlikely that law is to reduce gun violence. For them, the Second Amendment is all regulation and no rights.
While the two sides disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, they share a similar view of the right to bear arms: both see such a right as fundamentally inconsistent with gun control, and believe we must choose one or the other. Gun rights and gun control, however, have lived together since the birth of the country. Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state constitutional law. Today, 43 of the 50 state constitutions clearly protect an individual’s right to own guns, apart from militia service.
Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
OPPOSITION TO GUN CONTROL was what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.
Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”
Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.” They bought some of their first guns with earnings from selling copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book to students at the University of California at Berkeley. In time, the Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir. Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank and driven it right up the freeway.
Along with providing classes on black nationalism and socialism, Newton made sure recruits learned how to clean, handle, and shoot guns. Their instructors were sympathetic black veterans, recently home from Vietnam. For their “righteous revolutionary struggle,” the Panthers were trained, as well as armed, however indirectly, by the U.S. government.
Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.
The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.
In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.
“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.
Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.
“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.
“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.
======================
pages more at link.
When I read the OP, I had a feeling that it wouldn't end with "America used to control the availability of guns to minorities" and that it would devolve into full blown "Gun control advocates are racists" mode.
This thing has jumped the shark. Even if I don't agree with large parts of the gun control platform, the idea that they are inherently un-American, *insert your cliched insult here*, racists, is ridiculous to me.
This thing has jumped the shark. Even if I don't agree with large parts of the gun control platform, the idea that they are inherently un-American, *insert your cliched insult here*, racists, is ridiculous to me.
Angry Fork
Member
I think the issue here is we don't see police (or society in general) in the same way. I see them as militarized defenders of the status quo, and the status quo is organizations/corporations that have crippled this country/ordinary people and will continue to do so in the name of oligarchs. That's not even mentioning the amount of irrational laws, the drug war etc. Police are there to defend that society, but if you think that society is fundamentally unethical and wrong then police are the enemy as long as they wear that uniform.
Guns are a potential tool to defend yourself if that society ever reached a point where there is violent class conflict. I'm not sure that peaceful protest will work or slow reform. If it works then great more power to it I'm 100% with that. But if it doesn't then I think it's reasonable to have plan B's in place for self defense which would have to be weapons otherwise you'd get mowed down like Kent State.
If you think the current US infrastructure is fine then yea gun control seems like a no brainer they should be banned like many other countries, but if you think we're on a collision course to dramatic meltdown then it's better to be safe than sorry. This is actually the rationale of tea partiers but the difference is I can back up my paranoia with reasonable arguments and the fact that anti-capitalist sentiment has started to build up across the world, where as they think Obama is a muslim Stalin which is not based in any fact what so ever.
Once we're in a society that actually cares for the well being of it's citizens and are filled with logical compassionate intelligent people then yes guns should be gotten rid of, but by then the idea of institutional state/corporate power should be gotten rid of as well.
I don't know, is the criminal justice system still heavily weighted against minorities?
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Dude Abides
Banned
It's. always refreshing when someone honestly admits that their mind is made up and they ain't interested in no damn facts sayin' different.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Of course not, LMAO. I'm not a zealot about gun rights. It's a fundamental belief that I have. I wholeheartedly support the 2nd Amendment. But I also believe in being reasonable. The problem is where does MY definition of reasonable as a persona that believes in gun ownership meet with someone else's definition of reasonable that's generally opposed to gun ownership? Where's that middle ground? We both believe we're right. And it's made even more difficult because in many ways we're both right.
Mammoth Jones
Member
It's nice that I live in reality and not a magical bubble of statistics coupled with studies that I can conveniently pull out of my ass to mean whatever my argument means to justify my position rather than concede each person should have their own choice in gun ownership and the responsibility that goes with it.
But um...yea....good luck with that.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I suspect the responses are more because people believe Manos is just trying to push "gun control is evil in every form imaginable" following up on a recent thread and less because of any view on the origin of gun control
Messypandas
Member
Mammoth honestly i don't blame you. You live in a reality where you are 40x more likely to be murdered with a firearm than any other civilised country. I'd arm myself too
The main point of this discussion has moved away from the historical aspects of Manos initial post towards a general discussion of gun control, in my eyes. I hope we can agree on that.
And as part of this discussion, I was trying to point out that there are populous, diverse, modern countries who handle gun laws differently and who have a fragment of the crime rates of the US.
Germany mainly served as an example for such a country, since it's the one I know most about. Of course I'm not implying you should move there. (I'm currently visiting the US, which I wouldn't do if I hated it)
My intention was to show that you can choose a different way to handle guns in a modern society, and you won't have to suffer from it.
As for the Nazi implications, that's just apersonal pet peeve of mine. It's in no way relevant to the question of whether a society today can survive without guns.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yes we've already established that facts have no bearing on your opinion. That's what I said.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Thank you.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I believe so.
I don't really see how people could read the OP and react this way. I'm honestly taken aback. There's a long history of gun control in the US and it was spawned in large part to keep the former slaves from gaining any sort of power. Just one of many things implemented to keep them oppressed, including but not limited to: home ownership barriers, employment barriers, religious barriers, firearm ownership barriers, healthcare barriers and experimentation, and other socioeconomic barriers.
Why that would surprise anyone is off-putting...but the fact that some responses are basically, "lolno" is actually enraging. I know GAF doesn't like Manos gun conversations for whatever reasons, but come the fuck on.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I read it the first time. No need to continue the self-fellating. But I mean, have at it if you want, LOL.
Nobody's claiming this. Manos has suggested it as a possibility. I don't think that I agree with him. But I would definitely say that a lot of the things people talk about as being problems with gun rights are, first and foremost, problems of social justice -- so why is it that instead of addressing the reasons that urban gangs exist (racism being a key one), we want to address the guns they use to shoot people? Why treat the symptom instead of treating the disease? And I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that it is possible some people would rather talk about guns than about the disenfranchisement of minorities.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
My issue with the thread is that as soon as I saw it and that it was a Manos thread I knew that he was going to make the implication, at some point, that liberals who are for gun control are secretly racist. I wasn't disappointed.
As to the actual topic: If it was originally racially motivated I don't think that's particularly relevant today.
Mammoth is absolutely claiming it. At this point, I think it would be insincere to suggest that the entire point of this thread wasn't to eventually bring it around to a claim that current gun control advocates (and legislation) is racist.
Poverty and disenfranchisement are definitely important issues, but wrapping them into the overall argument of "I want guns, don't you dare even talk about taking my guns or making it harder for people to get guns" is just... bleh.
I saw where it was going as well. Sure enough, that's exactly where it went.
Jeez, man, it's only been fifteen minutes and you asked an extremely detailed demographic question. Manos didn't claim "no minorities," he claimed "small minority populations." I think that's pretty defensible!
Well that's a graph of the most white liberal cities in the country, so it should be no surprise that gun control laws in Portland and Seattle are strict enough to get struck down by the Supreme Court.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I can speak for myself, thank you.
I'm claiming that historical and modern (1960's) gun control legislation had clearly racist roots. Nothing more. Point. Blank. Period. (seems I'm re-linking this. Maybe we should all give it a read, eh?)
Am I saying any and all people that advocate gun control clearly have agendas of keeping minorities down and are racist? LMAO. No. My mother is FEVERISHLY anti-gun. So is my sister. So is many of my closest friends. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" he put it.
I can speak for myself, thank you.
I'm claiming that historical and modern (1960's) gun control legislation had clearly racist roots. Nothing more. Point. Blank. Period. (seems I'm re-linking this. Maybe we should all give it a read, eh?)
Am I saying any and all people that advocate gun control clearly have agendas of keeping minorities down and are racist? LMAO. No. My mother is FEVERISHLY anti-gun. So is my sister. So is many of my closest friends. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" he put it.
Am I going nuts or did this quote not always have the word "some" in it. If I'm going nuts and you didn't alter it, then I digress.
It's a ridiculous claim, yet the thread proceeded exactly how myself and others knew it would. Okay.
What was the question in the OP BTW? Were racist laws enacted during a racist period of United States history? Yes. Case closed. It was answered multiple times.
Frankly, this is a ridiculous claim. From literally the first reply, nobody even attempted to answer the question in the OP, preferring instead to argue about gun control while claiming they were sick of Manos arguing about gun control!
phosphor112
Banned
A week ago, a man diagnosed with Schizophrenia two months prior, rented a gun and shot up the gun store that he rented it from.
GUN CONTROL!!!!
The investigation is on going, but my brother went to class with him in High School. He was only recently diagnosed.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You have to have "been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;" and that applies to purchases anyway. Also wasn't the only person killed the guy with the gun?
phosphor112
Banned
Google detective work right here.
Yes, the shooter died, but the clerk he shot is in critical condition.
Still, he was diagnosed with Schizo yet our laws let crazies own guns. It's stupid.
Dreams-Visions
Member
the law allows for diagnosed Schizo's to own guns?
sure he didn't just slip through the cracks of the gun check system?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I had heard about it earlier in the week. Don's Guns right?
No, they don't.
He only rented one that's why, not buy one. That said their have been improvements to the database systems since Virginia Tech...which was supported by the NRA. It had a provision for restoration if they weren't ill or have recovered, which seems logical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all
phosphor112
Banned
He rented it. Which should still be under the same laws as ownership, but it isn't.
Also, this store has had several problems in the past with their guns being used in crimes.
Dude Abides
Banned
Well, the OP is the gun equivalent of the pro-lifers always shouting about how Margaret Sanger was a racist. It's more of a way to argue the current situation than some disinterested historical inquiry.
phosphor112
Banned
Yeah, you got all gun/shooting related news on a some RSS feed?
Let me re-word that. Our laws let them have guns in their possession.
Hit them on guns and hit them on voting rights, and economically isolate them. Absolutely, yes. This happens to most black men who are subject to the ACJS. America the beautiful doesn't want ex-cons to be completely absolved of their pasts.
But I'm talking about the intent of historical regulation of arms, versus modern legal gun control. The gun control of today isn't targeting blacks, but a lot of blacks may be blocked from ownership because they were targeted by a system we know has serious problems. But the problems of one system don't become the problems of another, necessarily.
The concept of gun control has a bad history, but modern gun control doesn't touch any of that, imho.
General opposition to gun ownership? I'd tell them they can keep their opinions, but they don't stand up to the law. I don't have to meet that in the middle.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Funny enough I don't use RSS feeds, never got into them. It came up from Facebook News Feed from the NRA I think.
Except I wasn't, but nice try.
The most dangerous lunatics have never been adjucated or committed to a mental institution. A lot of times they're not even diagnosed. Just saying, I'm not for or against gun control.
- Status