Dude Abides
Banned
Why would you lie when your words are right there to be quoted:
Baffling.
Manos, the JayDubya of gun control.
-
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
Why would you lie when your words are right there to be quoted:
Baffling.
Manos, the JayDubya of gun control.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
What lie? If most realized what they were supporting. It's pretty obvious I meant earlier gun control passed with racist intent. How the hell is that hard to understand?
Sorry, once again you are wrong on this.
Nice try though!
You're vastly overreading that. Of course if you ask Manos why Democrats support gun control more than Republicans he's going to say "good question, I think they haven't thought it through." Manos is a gun-rights Democrat!
You simply can't draw a logical train through
* Gun control began as a super racist thing
* Then why do Democrats support it?
* I dunno, why do they?
And say that it means that Manos is arguing that Democrats are racist. Jackpot's question doesn't respond to the point! That's where the logical break occurs.
Freakinchair
Member
oh great - another manos thread about the great U.S.A where he conveniently ignores all of the facts that people throw at him and argues semantics.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yes, "why do Democrats today support racist gun control laws? I wonder if they realize they are supporting these racist laws." was your "question." I.e. an attempt to use this to debate the current issue.
I agree that there are some racist elements regarding gun laws. To deny this would be ignorant. Same goes with allot of laws today. They won't say it outright, but it's in there.
To opress women and minorities is something that was here in the beginning. But things are changing rapidly. I think people with old views know this and are trying to protect it. This is what the conservatives are doing. The white male is now the one that will be opressed in the future, and conservatives are trying to stop it. Why is it then that the majority of conservatives are white males?
Why aren't they the ones being called progressive? Why is their moto " Take our country back" ? Why does it always seem that some of their policies seem racist or sexist?
Come on.
It's obvious and if you can't see that, you must be delusional.
To opress women and minorities is something that was here in the beginning. But things are changing rapidly. I think people with old views know this and are trying to protect it. This is what the conservatives are doing. The white male is now the one that will be opressed in the future, and conservatives are trying to stop it. Why is it then that the majority of conservatives are white males?
Why aren't they the ones being called progressive? Why is their moto " Take our country back" ? Why does it always seem that some of their policies seem racist or sexist?
Come on.
It's obvious and if you can't see that, you must be delusional.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
No, it wasn't. Keep trying though.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Does it matter though if the end effect allows all American's to own firearms vs limited ownership by certain groups? Also isn't claiming white males will be oppressed in the future playing into the wingnut manifesto? They won't be.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
First rule of Manos: Never respond to Manos.
I don't understand what's going on in this post at all.
SirButterstick
Banned
A BILLION GUNZ JUST GOT . . . . BAZILLIONER!
GUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZ!
ALL I GOTZ IZ GUNZ ON MY MIND!
GUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZ!
ALL I GOTZ IZ GUNZ ON MY MIND!
Delusibeta
Banned
After the last gun control thread Manos started, I've learned to not get into a debate with Manos on the subject. I still don't see why the United States decided to be pretty much the only developed country where the suggestion of controlling availability of guns is seen as controversial. I guess it's a similar reason as to why universal healthcare is controversial.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I've figured out the technique Manos uses: He sidelines and bends all counter-arguments so they sound to be false, which in the end makes it seem like he's the only one who knows the issue, when he uses as many counter-arguments that he wants it to look like his opponents doesn't.
Oh, and I'm starting to become a supporter of having the right to own guns, because then I could shoot people like Manos.
Then after that they could remove all of my rights for all I care.
Oh, and I'm starting to become a supporter of having the right to own guns, because then I could shoot people like Manos.
Then after that they could remove all of my rights for all I care.
SirButterstick
Banned
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Progressive has a very specific historical context in America, referring to the era in which the government began to actively intervene in matters of commerce (starting with food inspection and trust-busting under Roosevelt, and then continuing through into the New Deal and Great Society).
"Progressive" doesn't mean "progress", it means "enlarging the scope of government to address excesses or abuses of the strongest players in the marketplace while still keeping a dominantly Lockean liberal, individualist, and market-driven approach to political philosophy"--in contrast to the socialist or social democrat collectivist impulse. Progressivism was basically the integration of Tory/classical conservative principles about social stability into the dominant national mode of thought (liberalism again in the Lockean sense) and as a bedrock against more radical challenges to the system.
Republicans cannot accurately be considered progressive in any way, except perhaps in terms of farming subsidies, and that tends to be a non-partisan issue in the US. They do combine elements of economic classical liberalism with elements of Burkean conservatism, especially when it relates to tradition, social-religious order, and public morality.
As it relates to gun control, neither position is progressive. The anti-gun control position is liberal in disposition in that it conceives of personal armament as an individual right, and does not see a role for the state to infringe or govern that right. The pro-gun control position is conservative in disposition in that it views personal armament as a challenge to social order and argues that wisdom would dictate that this excess must be curbed in the name of peace.
This is complicated by the abuse of language in modern American politics, where "conservative" means Republican, right and "liberal" means Democratic or political left... and "liberal" is considered a naughty word, so Democrats and the political left need a more neutral word to describe their position, so they adopt "progressive", which is also not historically accurate. :/
It's called the 2nd amendment. It's original intent was the right to protect yourself from the government.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Yeah, that was a bit crazy, and did he get permed?
Dude Abides
Banned
Actually for a state to protect itself from the federal government.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
No, that's not correct.
Dreams-Visions
Member
well said, as per usual.
and I've found that most political discourse of this type becomes confused and cloudy because of the multiple meanings and lack of clarity in key words that are essential to understanding the differences.
as you point out, "progressive" can mean two very different things today...and the lack of understanding of the former by many complicates communication about issues related to it.
I didn't even know you could rent a gun. wut.
the quality of your contributions is only surpassed by your wit, as is clearly displayed here.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I'm sure I'm going to regret this reply because I don't really like the discussion at all and I live in a country where this is simply not a political issue so I feel like a dickhead getting involved in an essentially American debate with no comparative component.
1) I believe that in most historical contexts in most places, gun control was advanced largely by ruling elites as a way of disarming the lower classes and preserving their power-order. Likewise, I believe the Second Amendment is a direct acknowledgment of this--government and power is the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, that force is frequently used to suppress social movements, and the Second Amendment is a direct response to that and intended to be a balance against that. This definition works very well, because it's true whether you have an individualist perspective on the Second Amendment or a collectivist/well-armed militia perspective.
In the US context, the power relations between elite and poor have historically been tinged with race. So I readily accept that the outcome of gun control historically would have been racist, regardless of the individual intent of supporters.
2) That being said, I think there has been a profound shift in the framing of the gun control argument. I would be very worried about gun control advocates that use explicitly conservative framing and say things like "It would be better for social stability if [the unwashed masses] did not have access to [devices that empower them]." But that's not the modern case for gun control. The modern case for gun control, whether it is correct or incorrect, adopts generally pragmatic framing. The kinds of gun control that have been enacted have largely started from the logic that violent death is bad, and argued that gun control is a way to prevent violent death. The kinds of policies supported are generally not blanket bans, but rather incremental or regulatory measures--waiting periods, disarmament of felons or the mentally ill, bans or regulations on particular ammunition or gun types--without curbing the general ability of individuals to possess weapons.
Now, I think you can argue that these policies don't work. I think you can argue that banning sawn-off barrels doesn't lower the number of deaths. I think you can argue that if you ban guns, only criminals have guns. I am well aware of the arguments against gun control. But what I'm saying is that if you analyze the stated motivation of modern gun control advocates and the framing that they use, what you'll find is at its root a pragmatic approach, rather than an ideologically elite or conservative perspective that you would associate with the "racism" identified.
I hope it's clear from this perspective that I'm essentially endeavoring to answer the question in the thread title without addressing the question of whether or not gun control is good policy.
1) I believe that in most historical contexts in most places, gun control was advanced largely by ruling elites as a way of disarming the lower classes and preserving their power-order. Likewise, I believe the Second Amendment is a direct acknowledgment of this--government and power is the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, that force is frequently used to suppress social movements, and the Second Amendment is a direct response to that and intended to be a balance against that. This definition works very well, because it's true whether you have an individualist perspective on the Second Amendment or a collectivist/well-armed militia perspective.
In the US context, the power relations between elite and poor have historically been tinged with race. So I readily accept that the outcome of gun control historically would have been racist, regardless of the individual intent of supporters.
2) That being said, I think there has been a profound shift in the framing of the gun control argument. I would be very worried about gun control advocates that use explicitly conservative framing and say things like "It would be better for social stability if [the unwashed masses] did not have access to [devices that empower them]." But that's not the modern case for gun control. The modern case for gun control, whether it is correct or incorrect, adopts generally pragmatic framing. The kinds of gun control that have been enacted have largely started from the logic that violent death is bad, and argued that gun control is a way to prevent violent death. The kinds of policies supported are generally not blanket bans, but rather incremental or regulatory measures--waiting periods, disarmament of felons or the mentally ill, bans or regulations on particular ammunition or gun types--without curbing the general ability of individuals to possess weapons.
Now, I think you can argue that these policies don't work. I think you can argue that banning sawn-off barrels doesn't lower the number of deaths. I think you can argue that if you ban guns, only criminals have guns. I am well aware of the arguments against gun control. But what I'm saying is that if you analyze the stated motivation of modern gun control advocates and the framing that they use, what you'll find is at its root a pragmatic approach, rather than an ideologically elite or conservative perspective that you would associate with the "racism" identified.
I hope it's clear from this perspective that I'm essentially endeavoring to answer the question in the thread title without addressing the question of whether or not gun control is good policy.
Thanks, your rage posting brings a lot to the table too.
It's pretty amazing that not a single person in this thread has mentioned Bill Clinton. A decade of crazy violence perpetrated by white people blasted all over the media, in the era of the "first black president", and people wonder why gun control isn't associated with racism right now? Maybe that's not true though, gun control does still seem to be connected to racism. Now that a black man is in power racists go fucking ballistic over the idea that he can control their guns. TBH I think that's also why the anti-Clintonists were so insane.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Hence why I clarified.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
For use at the onsite range.
the quality of your contributions is only surpassed by your wit, as is clearly displayed here.[/QUOTE]
I think that's actually an excellent analysis. Now if you don't mind me asking when do you think the shift occurred and do you think that some of the elite or conservative approach still exists? One example being Anti-Gun public figures/celebs who own guns or used armed bodyguards.
Actually the article on the first page is from 1991. Trust me, people were ballistic over Clinton then too. The internet and social media weren't around though.
This is an eminently reasonable post that I essentially agree with -- but I would, as I noted above, suggest that institutionalized racism can and does play a part in prioritizing reform. People like to talk about the violent death rate in Chicago, for example -- but are guns the primary reason for that rate, or is urban violence? Because the latter is not a question of gun control but of social justice and the continued disenfranchisement of minorities. So I can't help but question people who offer statistics about death from assault and examples of individual murderers, without examining the larger context in which these events exist, and how we must change the context, rather than the symptoms.
That article is a historical overview, and doesn't mention Bill Clinton. What I was saying is that the people who would have supported gun control in order to oppress minorities are against it now that a minority individual can use it to oppress them. I was further speculating that because Clinton wielded the police state against white people (and had good relations with blacks) they hated him for the same reason ("BILL CLINTON LEAVES TRAIL OF DEAD BODIES" chain letters style.)
Neuromancer
Member
Too far
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Well other articles point out that it pretty much occurred in the late 1970s when people in the NRA were pissed off after well doing nothing against certain bills. From 1968 to 1986 you actually had to have every bit of ammo you bought logged (even though there was no way to trace or make use of it). It's why certain ammo was listed Curio and Relic so that collectors with an FFL03 (I have one) could buy the ammo without needing to do that. The Atlantic article that dreams-vision posted gives a good overview of the internal NRA switch. So I don't know if it's fair to make the claim you do. The people were pissed after years of white Presidents.
Ah yes CLINTON BODY COUNT!!!! But like I said it had been percolating for years after the GCA of 1968 and boiled over in the late 1970s.
Yeah, people wanting to shoot me...well mentioning openly...is kind of new. lol
I don't think the people you are talking about are the people who would have supported gun control for racist reasons. I'm only saying that gun control only existed as a racist institution as long as a the workable coalition that supported it included racists (or that the coalition needed their support.) So my (unsupported) assertion is that Bill Clinton pretty much single-handedly broke that coalition because his support for minorities caused the racists support to evaporate. And certainly if Clinton wasn't the last straw, Obama was. No matter that Obama hasn't actually done anything, the important part is that the government isn't just for white people anymore.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Okay I see what you are talking about now. That's kind of why the Gun Control Act had some of the support it did...it wasn't because of concern for street crime. That said as long as the laws that existed for broad powers, such as May Issue Permits (as we can with MLK in the article on the first page) can still be abused for the power they endow. I'd argue that the move to Shall Issue helped break down the power that local Sheriff's and LEO had to potential abuse in regards to firearms. However I think it was the move to oppose gun control that is what did it in, since they weren't arguing for exceptions anymore. I don't know whether racists realized they lost, went to general pro gun control (just making it harder for all but them), or just accepted it was over. I just don't think Clinton broke the back.
You know I still think it exists, it's just more elite vs racial, the example I offered to Stump about Anti Gun Celebs or Public figures that own guns or use armed guards, but want to prohibit people from owning guns. You could argue that it's gone from race to socio economic.
Donald Trump is one of the few people to have an NJ Non-res carry permit (which requires Judges to approve it and in practice they never do).
Any of that seem logical?
I guess the evidence I would offer is that Clinton managed to pass some gun control laws, but those laws are now anathema and it seems like opposition to them strongly motivated by his association with them. Certainly there is no side that publicly calls for disarming minorities these days but it's not just that those views disappeared, they actually switched to calling the government a threat to the liberty of white people, and in some cases predicting that a majority minority America will oppress white people. The latter faction was definitely catalyzed by the actions of the Clinton administration.
The system will definitely operate in a way that disadvantages blacks no matter what factions make the laws, and probably no matter what the law actually is, but that problem does not lie in the legislative process.
Yes it does. Rich celebrities get all sorts of preferential treatment because they are well known, and that is rational. Unfair but rational. Their wealth makes them predictable (they have a lot to lose if they do any of the things gun permits are meant to prevent) and their fame makes the task of identifying them irrelevant. Same goes for immigration & customs, commercial freebies, finance, lobbying I mean the list is endless. That's just a classic information problem.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I dunno I mean I think they existed with the John Birch Society and it's ilk in the 1960s, and with people who though Ike(!) was a communist puppet! I do agree that Clinton like Kennedy gave groups like that a catalyst.
Isn't part of the problem rest in tools being given?
Devolution
Member
Can you give me more comparisons to the plight of reproductive backwards ass legislation? That was indeed a good troll.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Both violate fundamental human rights, the right to privacy and the right to bear arms. Waiting limits to buy a gun and a waiting limit to get an abortion. Needing "approval" from the government to have a carry permit with not promise a law abiding citizen will be granted it and must be at the whim of a local official, needing parental permission to get an abortion. Gun free zones and laws to protect a fetus. Laws that protect no one and only harm the innocent.
Devolution
Member
minos pls
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You don't think the right to privacy, the right cited in Roe v Wade, is a fundamental human right, even if not specifically mentioned like the right to bear arms is?
MisterNoisy
Member
False equivalency - it's what's for dinner.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Not here it isn't.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Why not? Just because certain people don't want to know history, doesn't mean they get a free pass.
Comparing gun control to Roe v Wade is nuts. Roe v Wade never said anyone had a right to an abortion in the same sense you have a right to a gun. The right to privacy goes no further than simply stating that a mother does not have to disclosure her medical reasons for an abortion. That right to privacy was clearly allowed to be suspended in cases of dangerous abortions, or abortions where the fetus is viable enough to live on its own and the mother can't medically justify having it.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
The right for homosexuals to have consensual sex also comes under right to privacy. It is interesting that you claim gun ownership is more of a right than owning a gun.
Give me a break, when have I ever talked about that stuff.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I have a rule against responding to your posts, but this analogy is so far beyond rational that I honestly think there's a wire crossed in your head. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate your thinking.
Either that or you're just continuing your trend as a troll (and the best one around) and this is all a game to you.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I'm sorry you don't believe in the right to bear arms or the right for a women to have an abortion.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Yep. Troll confirmed.
Your shtick is seriously old, man, just give it up.
- Status