Confrontation Between Pro-Gun Activists and Texas Democrat

utbagpiper said:

Texas is part of the Old South and has some Jim Crow era gun laws to shed. That the stereotype doesn't quite match up to reality simply demonstrates that some stereotypes a

Charles

Click to expand...

Just a correction. the banning of rights in TX, are not Jim Crowe laws. But carpet bagger laws

utbagpiper said:

While far from perfect, I think the Robert's court is doing better than some predecessors in looking to black letter constitutional language and original intent. On Obamacare, I certainly wish he'd looked beyond 16th amendment unlimited power to tax to explore limits on spending the money that is collected and found the feds have no constitutional authority to run a healthcare financial plan for the general populace. But that isn't really related to guns.

Eternal vigilance and work. Every election matters, every appointment to the bench is important. Winning the hearts and minds of our neighbors cannot be ignored.

Charles

Click to expand...

True. I am sure you know that I was referring to Scalia. He too may not be perfect but he does look into the supposedly murky past.

papa bear said:

Just a correction. the banning of rights in TX, are not Jim Crowe laws. But carpet bagger laws

Click to expand...

You mean that the lawmakers themselves are carpet baggers? humbug! All the Texans need to do is to holster and carry all at once everywhere and put their lawmakers on notice that 2a is their permit slip. You'll have thousands upon thousands out in force and what can they do??

Law abider said:

You mean that the lawmakers themselves are carpet baggers?

Click to expand...

Of course, what I'm about to ponder doesn't in any way lessen the South's guilt for perpetrating the enslavement of countless blacks. And, of course outright slavery is an undeniably greater crime than Jim Crow laws.

That being made clear, it wasn't like Southern reconstruction was a purely locally-lead affair. Northerners (and carpetbaggers in particular) played ample part, a large part of which was inflaming the long-smoldering coals of mutual racial antipathy through a surreal and absurd combination of policies which can, in retrospect, only be viewed as intended to have precisely this effect. In the process they decimated the South's economy, leaving it easy pickings for wealthy carpetbagging war profiteers. Of course, this also had the incidental (but wholly predictable) effect of impoverishing nearly all blacks -- and most un-propertied whites -- which created an equally-incidental-but-wholly-predictable surge in lawlessness, which is what ultimately inspired the elites to legislatively disarm their political "inferiors".

Indeed, in antebellum years the North was described by more than one contemporary as sometimes (rather incongruously) displaying more prevalent and virulent racism than the South, despite the latter's greater (and indefensible) preference for slavery. But then, the South of the reconstruction becomes notoriously hostile to the newly freed blacks, with institutional and cultural racism towards blacks being the absolute norm.

To me, there sure seems to be plenty of blame to spread around. So I'm not at all sure that the difference between "carpetbagger" and "Jim Crow legislator" is especially significant; it seems that "elites" of every ilk have been all too frequently happy to use government to benefit themselves at the expense of the (explicitly or effectively) disenfranchised.

And that's what these laws do, of course. Political and social elites don't need explicit firearm and self-defense rights to provide for their security, because they can use some combination of political and economic influence to buy themselves everything from criminal immunity to round-the-clock bodyguards. It's the rest of us -- the middle and lower classes -- who get the shaft, so to speak.

papa bear said:

Just a correction. the banning of rights in TX, are not Jim Crowe laws. But carpet bagger laws

Click to expand...

That would make perfect sense. The north was (is) no less racist than was the South, perhaps more so in certain ways.

And it was carpet baggers running things until Texas was re-admitted to the union in 1870. Of course, under Jim Crow, many a law was enforced rather selectively. Today, across the nation, some laws continue to be enforced selectively. Now it is more likely to be socio-economic discrimination rather than overt racial discrimination.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

That would make perfect sense. The north was (is) no less racist than was the South, perhaps more so in certain ways.

And it was carpet baggers running things until Texas was re-admitted to the union in 1870. Of course, under Jim Crow, many a law was enforced rather selectively. Today, across the nation, some laws continue to be enforced selectively. Now it is more likely to be socio-economic discrimination rather than overt racial discrimination.

Charles

Click to expand...

Hey, you're not allowed to say the same thing as me in fewer words!

utbagpiper said:

That would make perfect sense. The north was (is) no less racist than was the South, perhaps more so in certain ways.

And it was carpet baggers running things until Texas was re-admitted to the union in 1870. Of course, under Jim Crow, many a law was enforced rather selectively. Today, across the nation, some laws continue to be enforced selectively. Now it is more likely to be socio-economic discrimination rather than overt racial discrimination.

Charles

Click to expand...

Believe me, we have our own Jim Crowe law here i NC. As in the POS PPP law.

they started off as breedist laws but i guess the government considers everybody as "human trash" now

marshaul said:

Hey, you're not allowed to say the same thing as me in fewer words!

Click to expand...

+1

utbagpiper said:

Texas is part of the Old South and has some Jim Crow era gun laws to shed. That the stereotype doesn't quite match up to reality simply demonstrates that some stereotypes are flawed.

Click to expand...

Texas really is part of the Southwest, not the Old South. Was lightly inhabited part of Mexico, then an Anglo country - settlement nothing along the lines of the original East Coast colonies being Englishmen first before rupture w mother country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't forget: The "Reconstruction" of Texas re: gun laws was also to disarm white ex-Confederate soldiers haging out down there, including any who might be feeling a tad disgruntled ("sore losers") and such, and who MIGHT be a problem due to being disgruntled, as they might engage in government offices, workplace, mall or school shootings. ;-)

As for geographics -- and how a place "feels" to live in (its vibes) -- far West Texas more so connected to the Southwest, akin to New Mexico.

Central & East Texas is more the "real" Texas, if you will (and I agree the "Old South" is further East of TX). ;-)

The bayous & beaches in the Houston/Beaumont areas are somewhat reminiscent of neighboring Louisiana. At least they both have hurricanes in common. But IIRC, LA has more gun-carrying freedom than TX...in fact, ALL the states around TX do (as we all here know).

...one reason we look forward to TX (finally) getting OC in 2015 -- and hopefully UNpermitted OC.

I WOULD prefer to visit TX and be OCing instead of CCing...

Law abider said:

How does government get away with doing away with the supreme law of the land: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article 6. What happened to that?

Click to expand...

Who says that they "get away with it?"

Their laws have not effected me....

utbagpiper said:

depends on your perspective.

some would argue that it is nothing but rank tyranny: Might makes right.

Others might take a more charitable view and recognize that the first scotus ruling to ever deal directly with rkba (with both sides properly represented) was heller, in 2007. Heller was then incorporated against the states by mcdonald a year or two later.

The courts are still (and probably always will be) teasing out the limits of the 1st amendment, 4th and 5th amendments, etc.

Iow, even those of us who subscribe to a strict constructionist and/or original intent meaning of the constitution, have to concede that we've spent all of our nation's history working out exactly what the limits of government power and individual liberty are under various cases.

On rkba, at least, we seem to be headed the right direction.

Charles

Click to expand...

no compromise!! Besides where are the county sheriffs in the oaths? They should be defying the state law.

davidmcbeth said:

Who says that they "get away with it?"

Their laws have not effected me....

Click to expand...

Then why do we have to have permits? Why do they not allow OC in NY or TX? Why is it the police of the Capitol police in Madison that you CC inside. There is no law. It depends where you are. The states have a long way to go in applying the madison doctrine of spheres of influence and barriers against the feds or the counties against the states. The list goes on and on ad infinitum.

HPmatt said:

Texas really is part of the Southwest, not the Old South. Was lightly inhabited part of Mexico, then an Anglo country - settlement nothing along the lines of the original East Coast colonies being Englishmen first before rupture w mother country.

Click to expand...

You and Cloudcroft are correct. I'm afraid my effort to delicate lead to a bit a mis-statement. I should have just straight up said that Texas was part of the Confederate States and thus had a number of Jim Crow laws.

Charles

Our daughter found this out when she went to college - outside of Texas - in Virginia [emoji15]. Girls from TN, VA and MS set her straight....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk