Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Gun Control: It's not just for colored folks anymore

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Cliff Notes version of this story: Final English 111 paper: Gun control, it's roots (post Civil War racism), and it's modern effects and implications on today's society.

    A bit of branching out will occur as well, pointing to crime statistics (The Disaster Center has some well-compiled crime stats on their loosely organized page) versus Brady

    I fully plan to post this here when I am done, as well.

    If anyone has any interesting links they've already pulled up, or other information (I'll probably cover South vs. Maryland's implications while I'm at it), do feel free to share them.

    My work is typically a dry read, but I can be rather informative at times.

    It should be noted I commonly refer to this class as "Left Wing Studies 101". I'll give the professor enough credit to say that she's honest about it, however.

    If nothing else, maybe this will spark some discussion.

    Kind of like my Rant that died out over Thanksgiving.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    It never hurts to rub the noses of gun grabbers in the racist roots of gun control. Sometimes you can even get them to say their own racist things in favor of gun control. Strangely, they never seem to think that you'll remember, write down or save what they say to hard disk...
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I don't know if you picked up this link from the Georgia forum, but it's applicable.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Excellent topic and great link!







    Jersey

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    However it started in this country, unfortunately gun control is equal opportunity now, and I think it should be addressed as such. Coloring the debate of gun control with racial undertones I think only serve to reduce our credibility in effecting future change.
    -Unrequited

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    I think that's exactly what the original poster is saying. Hence the title:
    "Gun Control: It's not just for colored folks anymore"

    The link given just gives a historical view of how "laws" were passed to keep guns out of the hands from Afro-Americans back in the day. And now "they" are trying to pass more "laws" to keep EVERYONE from obtaining guns. I don't see a credibility problem anywhere by telling the truth.





    Jersey

    PS - And for the record the laws presented in the link would have applied DIRECTLY to me.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    However it started in this country, unfortunately gun control is equal opportunity now, and I think it should be addressed as such. Coloring the debate of gun control with racial undertones I think only serve to reduce our credibility in effecting future change.
    You'd be surprised. I've got a friend who used to be a criminal defense attorney in Chicago. He said that the ONLY White people he ever saw in "gun court" were the judges, bailiffs and testifying police.

    Whites stopped by police in Chicago found to be carrying concealed weapons were released and got their guns back if they weren't otherwise breaking the law.

    Blacks were arrested, indicted and tried.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    unrequited wrote:
    However it started in this country, unfortunately gun control is equal opportunity now, and I think it should be addressed as such. Coloring the debate of gun control with racial undertones I think only serve to reduce our credibility in effecting future change.
    You'd be surprised. I've got a friend who used to be a criminal defense attorney in Chicago. He said that the ONLY White people he ever saw in "gun court" were the judges, bailiffs and testifying police.

    Whites stopped by police in Chicago found to be carrying concealed weapons were released and got their guns back if they weren't otherwise breaking the law.

    Blacks were arrested, indicted and tried.
    What?

    Now these "Whites" that were set free and got their guns back... were they Chicago residents? Illinois residents? Out of state?

    Further more, I want to know how the concealed weapons were found on them if they "weren't otherwise breaking the law", they must have been printing, or else they couldn't have been stopped unless they "were otherwise breaking the law"...

    Also, how long ago was this, I couldn't believe it was recent, if it is, I will be shocked.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Hmm, I seem to recall working on cross-referencing Brady Bunch grades to per-capita crime levels a while back with Kendo.

    I wonder if I still have that work in progress...

    Can anyone think of some typically spouted reasons why people choose to go unarmed?

    You know "The police will protect me", and such nonsense.

    I plan to counter THAT with the South vs. Maryland case, and, with great hesitation, that Chicago cop caught on camera murdering someone on a subway. Probably not, actually. That's too much of a divergence. I will probably stick with typical police response times, and am considering having someone with an airsoft pistol come by while I'm doing this.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    Hmm, I seem to recall working on cross-referencing Brady Bunch grades to per-capita crime levels a while back with Kendo.

    I wonder if I still have that work in progress...

    Can anyone think of some typically spouted reasons why people choose to go unarmed?

    You know "The police will protect me", and such nonsense.

    I plan to counter THAT with the South vs. Maryland case, and, with great hesitation, that Chicago cop caught on camera murdering someone on a subway. Probably not, actually. That's too much of a divergence. I will probably stick with typical police response times, and am considering having someone with an airsoft pistol come by while I'm doing this.
    Actually, I had a nice conversation with my mechanic a couple of months ago. He didn't notice my sidearm until we'd been talking nearly 15 minutes, then it became a topic of conversation.

    He said he could never bear to shoot, even in defense of his life. Or that of his children.

    Much as I disagree with him, I have to respect that he's thought it through and made a decision. Very different from MOST who choose to go unarmed, I think.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    unrequited wrote:
    However it started in this country, unfortunately gun control is equal opportunity now, and I think it should be addressed as such. Coloring the debate of gun control with racial undertones I think only serve to reduce our credibility in effecting future change.
    You'd be surprised. I've got a friend who used to be a criminal defense attorney in Chicago. He said that the ONLY White people he ever saw in "gun court" were the judges, bailiffs and testifying police.

    Whites stopped by police in Chicago found to be carrying concealed weapons were released and got their guns back if they weren't otherwise breaking the law.

    Blacks were arrested, indicted and tried.
    What?

    Now these "Whites" that were set free and got their guns back... were they Chicago residents? Illinois residents? Out of state?

    Further more, I want to know how the concealed weapons were found on them if they "weren't otherwise breaking the law", they must have been printing, or else they couldn't have been stopped unless they "were otherwise breaking the law"...

    Also, how long ago was this, I couldn't believe it was recent, if it is, I will be shocked.
    Chicago residents, stopped for things like traffic infractions.

    7 or so years ago.

    Officers on http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com have mentioned letting people go.

    Of course too, Chicago is the most racist city in the United States.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    I am having a bit of trouble finding what you mentioned on that site, have a direct link by chance?

    Is chicago being the most racist city an assumption by you? I don't know how you could statistically support that, I would think it was NY, but even I am guessing...

  13. #13
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    I am having a bit of trouble finding what you mentioned on that site, have a direct link by chance?

    Is chicago being the most racist city an assumption by you? I don't know how you could statistically support that, I would think it was NY, but even I am guessing...
    Hmm...I thought Jena was the most racist city in the history of the world.

    :P :P

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    USAF_MetalChris wrote:
    openryan wrote:
    I am having a bit of trouble finding what you mentioned on that site, have a direct link by chance?

    Is chicago being the most racist city an assumption by you?* I don't know how you could statistically support that, I would think it was NY, but even I am guessing...
    Hmm...I thought Jena was the most racist city in the history of the world.

    :P :P
    That's a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig can of worms I'd love to go more into depth... not in this thread though. I think there's another one open. Basically though, the whole town should be razed... both sides.
    -Unrequited

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    Hmm, I seem to recall working on cross-referencing Brady Bunch grades to per-capita crime levels a while back with Kendo.

    I wonder if I still have that work in progress...

    Can anyone think of some typically spouted reasons why people choose to go unarmed?

    You know "The police will protect me", and such nonsense.

    I plan to counter THAT with the South vs. Maryland case, and, with great hesitation, that Chicago cop caught on camera murdering someone on a subway. Probably not, actually. That's too much of a divergence. I will probably stick with typical police response times, and am considering having someone with an airsoft pistol come by while I'm doing this.
    How about "violence begets violence... if I have a gun, other people will just become more violent."

    Or "I'll just give them whatever they want"

    Or "I stay out of the 'bad parts' of town, so I don't need it"

    Or "I've never needed a gun before, so why would I need one in the future?"

    Or my father's reason, "I fear that I wouldn't have enough self-restraint to use good judgement when I get angry at someone, and might end up shooting them." [Even though that would probably be legal in Texas]

    Interesting, though, as I'm currently working on a paper about how gun control more severely impacts racial and ethnic minorities.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    "violence begets violence... if I have a gun, other people will just become more violent."

    If this were true, violence would be rampant in police stations, were a majority of the people working there are armed.

    Including a reminder that people calling the cops are doing just that, calling in potentially violent backup.

    "I'll just give them whatever they want" - Plenty of cases of people being killed after giving in to robbery demands.

    "I stay out of the 'bad parts' of town, so I don't need it"
    Plenty of cases of someone leaving the bad part of town to go mess with the locals. Also, a lot of municipal buildings seem to be in bad areas.

    "I've never needed a gun before, so why would I need one in the future?"

    Seatbelt/Insurance argument.

    Or my father's reason, "I fear that I wouldn't have enough self-restraint to use good judgement when I get angry at someone, and might end up shooting them." [Even though that would probably be legal in Texas]

    Which is why carrying shouldn't be mandated. Well, that's not WHY it shouldn't be mandated, but....

    Thank you for those, Imp!
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    "violence begets violence... if I have a gun, other people will just become more violent."

    If this were true, violence would be rampant in police stations, were a majority of the people working there are armed.

    Including a reminder that people calling the cops are doing just that, calling in potentially violent backup.

    But the police are an elite group of people. Only they can be trusted with guns. They never misuse their power, either.

    "I'll just give them whatever they want" - Plenty of cases of people being killed after giving in to robbery demands.

    Well, a few times someone tried to resist and were killed, so obviously you should just give in.

    "I stay out of the 'bad parts' of town, so I don't need it"
    Plenty of cases of someone leaving the bad part of town to go mess with the locals. Also, a lot of municipal buildings seem to be in bad areas.

    The bad people won't attack me because I'm a good person. And, if I have to go to a municipal building, the fact that it is a government building means that no one will have evil guns there.

    "I've never needed a gun before, so why would I need one in the future?"

    Seatbelt/Insurance argument.

    Well, seatbelts and insurance make us safe. Guns only kill people.

    Or my father's reason, "I fear that I wouldn't have enough self-restraint to use good judgement when I get angry at someone, and might end up shooting them." [Even though that would probably be legal in Texas]

    Which is why carrying shouldn't be mandated. Well, that's not WHY it shouldn't be mandated, but....

    Thank you for those, Imp!
    I need to go throw up now...



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Hey, there's nothing wrong with practicing your common-sense arguments.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    I am having a bit of trouble finding what you mentioned on that site, have a direct link by chance?

    Is chicago being the most racist city an assumption by you? I don't know how you could statistically support that, I would think it was NY, but even I am guessing...
    You'll have to search through it. Of course if you do, you'll find a LOT of interesting things on a variety of subjects.

    I grew up in Chicago. I've never been ANYWHERE in the WORLD that could hold a candle to Chicago for racism, and not just Whites against Blacks. Whites hate Blacks; Blacks hate Jews; Mexicans hate Puerto Ricans, etc., etc., etc.

    Any town that attracts neo-Nazi leader Frank Collin AND Louis Farrakhan has to have a "special" quality.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Early draft. I'm literally in the middle of working on it, and Kendo's helping.

    We're actually having a good time with this, though I'm kind of scaring myself (you'll know when you get to it).

    Gun Control: It's not just for Colored People Anymore

    A recurring theme in modern politics is the issue of whether the common citizen is entitled to the right to own and carry arms. Typically, this argument is considered “Gun Control versus Gun Rights.”

    --Southern Racism, post Civ War.

    --The subject of interpretation of the Second Amendment (Quote 2A) has been a constant There are some that would argue the right of one to self defense is a bit outdated, and should be repealed in a puff of obsolescence.

    Indeed, using the same logic, one could argue for voiding the Third Amendment, and, in keeping with the current trend of Imminent Domain, allowing for members of the military and national guard the use of people's homes for an indeterminate period. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping citizens safe from crime, as armed soldiers would be living in the homes of the American people.

    The Fourth Amendment is another troublesome problem that could be done away with as we continue our modernization of the Bill of Rights. Allowing for unreasonable search and seizure by government officials, including local, state, and federal police agencies would ensure that persons harboring now-illegal weapons would be unable to hide them. The benefits of public safety would reach until new levels.

    The Fifth Amendment can be disposed of as well, for similar reasons to the Fourth. Allowing people to get away with not admitting to having dangerous items in the midst of an official investigation, and subsequent trial allows an unverified number of potentially dangerous people the ability to escape prosecution at the hands of what can only be considered a just and fair trial.

    With the danger of guns gone, the only crime that will be committed will be gun crimes, and if a an officer of the law says you have a dangerous firearm of any type, it should be prima facia evidence of your guilt, thus negating the need for a trial, your rights as an accused person, or the need for a trial by a jury of your peers. Indeed, with these reasons pointing out the glaringly superannuated nature of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, excessive bail would not be an issue, as most, if not all crime will have stopped at this point. With this in mind, one can safely write off the Eighth Amendment as no longer needed.

    Unfortunately, at this point, there may become a problem wherein people may insist they have the right to other kinds of dangerous ideas or items, possibly even weapons. For these reasons, the Ninth Amendment will most likely have to be stricken from the books, to ensure continued safety of the populace. With the Tenth Amendment being so closely tied to the Ninth, it only makes logical sense to remove any record of state or individual rights as well, lest there be any dangerous forms of dissent among citizen-subjects.

    The First Amendment provides certain problems as well, but, being that it was written into the Bill of Rights prior to any other, it should only be subject to review, and possible revision, for public safety. Hate speech, conspiracy to commit a crime, or instruction in the commission of a crime can be very dangerous. The exact limits of the freedom of speech should be clearly defined, to ensure a proper level of freedom that does not go too far.



    'Now that gun crimes are completely impossible'
    "Don't believe the lie that guns are the great equalizer. A 120 lb. woman should be fully capable of fighting off a 220 lb. man"

    -- The author of the paper was Eric Harris, one of the now-deceased infamous duo that was responsible for putting gun violence in schools in the public forefront.

    --The point is, one does not know who is buying guns, particularly during illegal gun sales. With this in mind, it makes perfect sense to pass a law

    AC
    Pepper Spray – 20+ seconds to start
    Call the cops – 45 minutes to Indian American Cafe
    Cops – No duty to protect
    Gun bans – Machinegun in Britain, cops are scared, stabbings WAY up, Australian Screwdriver stabbings, DC, Chicago, LA, NYC
    Guns cause crime – Gun shows, police stations
    Fewer guns, more safety – Unarmed victim zones
    Gun nuts – Dali Lama and Ghandi

    Talking Points
    McCarthy – Barrel Shroud – Truly, these safety devices, which keep people from burning their hands on hot metal are a threat. Representative McCarthy is truly a Renaissance Woman, in touch with how to keep her constituents safe, even if they do not have any fingerprints from hot metal.
    -Tucker Carlson: In February you introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007; it would regulate semi-automatic assault weapons, including weapons that have pistol grips, a forward grip, and something called a barrel shroud. Weapons with a barrel shroud would be regulated. What's a barrel shroud, and why should we regulate it?
    -Carolyn McCarthy: I think, I think the more important thing is that it also would have had banned the large capacity clips that Colin Ferguson had used, and also, uh, the killer, but when we're talking about--
    -Carlson [overlapping]: Right...but I...oh, okay...but I, I read--I read the legislation--I, I'm sorry--I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate barrel shrouds. What's a barrel shroud, and why we should regulate that?
    -McCarthy: The guns that were chosen back in uh, in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our, our police officers. I'm not saying it was the best bill, but that was the best bill the we could get out at that particular time.
    -Carlson: Okay, do you know what a barrel shroud is?
    -McCarthy: I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is--
    -Carlson: --Oh, okay, 'cause it's in your legislation--
    -McCarthy: --I believe it's a shoulder thing that goes up.
    -Carlson: No, it's not.


    -- Find the shroud off the 995


    Guns vs. Other death causes
    V tech report's conflicting views
    Racist beginnings
    Brady vs Crime Rates

    PC
    DoJ RKBA is an individual right
    Reported defensive uses yearly
    I doubt I'll cover everything here, but I figured having more ready is better than not having enough.

    I'll be back in a bit. Feel free to offer suggestions!

    Edit: After commenting that I felt ill after having read my own dismantling of the Bill of Rights....

    [user]Kendo_Bunny[/user]
    How do you think George Orwell felt?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Update, in case I'm accused of plagarism. I wouldn't put it past her.

    Gun Control: It's not just for Colored People Anymore
    A recurring theme in modern politics is the issue of whether the common citizen is entitled to the right to own and carry arms. Typically, this argument is considered “Gun Control versus Gun Rights.”
    Gun rights are, concisely defined, the right to keep and bear arms, often simply stated as “Second Amendment rights”, in name of the Constitutional Amendment, which reads, “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.”
    An oft-touted, and just as often disputed statement, particularly when it comes to the definition of what constitutes “the militia”. For a bit of clarity and definition, we turn to 10 U.S.C. § 311, which reads as follows:
    Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are -
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.
    In short, all healthy men age 17 – 45 that or, or say they want to become US citizens, and any women that are signed with the National Guard.

    For further consideration is Virginia's state definition of militias. This may be found in VA § 44-1.
    Composition of militia.
    The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.
    (1930, p. 948; 1942, p. 642; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(1); 1944, p. 24; 1958, c. 393; 1970, c. 662; 1973, c. 401; 1976, c. 399; 1979, c. 647; 1984, c. 765; 1989, c. 414.)
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...e?000+cod+44-1
    A bit more inclusive than the federal standard, with a ten-year increase in the maximum age cap, as well as being non-discriminatory by properly including women in the general militia. Essentially, anyone healthy, 16 to 55, that has declared intent to become a US citizen (being a citizen is a strong declaration of intent) is a member of the militia. If not the Air or National Guard, naval militia, or Virginia State Defense Force, then you are automatically a member. No membership, no sign up required.
    Why then, would anyone want to restrict the access of the militia
    Fortunately, as with many aspects of modern life, gun control laws have caught up with modern times. Gun control has since moved out of its outdated biases against people based on race or gender.

    In December of 1997, a student in what was once a little-known high school in Jefferson County, CO submitted a paper entitled “Guns in Schools” which detailed, presumably some from his own experiences on campus, that “It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator.” The reviewing instructor noted that it was “Thorough + Logical” on the title page, and granted the author a score of 69 / 75, or 92%.
    The student author of the paper was Eric Harris, one of the infamous now-deceased duo that was responsible for putting gun violence in schools to the forefront of public news. It is obvious that Mr. Harris, with the aid sought to show just how dangerous uncontested gunmen can be on a campus, and that the only way anyone would take the issue of guns on campus seriously is if people were shown the havoc that could be brought upon the unarmed populace in a school.
    After all, Mr. Harris simply wanted to show that 24 minutes is not too long to wait for the police. By that same token, waiting over an hour for a SWAT team is quite reasonable. Anyone expecting more from –cops-- is simply making unreasonable demands.
    Indeed, even the courts have ruled, as far back as ?1851? that the police have no duty to protect individuals [Swift vs. Maryland]

    --------------------
    The subject of interpretation of the Second Amendment (Quote 2A) has been a constant There are some that would argue the right of one to self defense is a bit outdated, and should be repealed in a puff of obsolescence.
    Indeed, using the same logic, one could argue for voiding the Third Amendment, and, in keeping with the current trend of Imminent Domain, allowing for members of the military and national guard the use of people's homes for an indeterminate period. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping citizens safe from crime, as armed soldiers would be living in the homes of the American people.
    The Fourth Amendment is another troublesome problem that could be done away with as we continue our modernization of the Bill of Rights. Allowing for unreasonable search and seizure by government officials, including local, state, and federal police agencies would ensure that persons harboring now-illegal weapons would be unable to hide them. The benefits of public safety would reach until new levels.
    The Fifth Amendment can be disposed of as well, for similar reasons to the Fourth. Allowing people to get away with not admitting to having dangerous items in the midst of an official investigation, and subsequent trial allows an unverified number of potentially dangerous people the ability to escape prosecution at the hands of what can only be considered a just and fair trial.
    With the danger of guns gone, the only crime that will be committed will be gun crimes, and if a an officer of the law says you have a dangerous firearm of any type, it should be prima facia evidence of your guilt, thus negating the need for a trial, your rights as an accused person, or the need for a trial by a jury of your peers. Indeed, with these reasons pointing out the glaringly superannuated nature of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, excessive bail would not be an issue, as most, if not all crime will have stopped at this point. With this in mind, one can safely write off the Eighth Amendment as no longer needed.
    Unfortunately, at this point, there may become a problem wherein people may insist they have the right to other kinds of dangerous ideas or items, possibly even weapons. For these reasons, the Ninth Amendment will most likely have to be stricken from the books, to ensure continued safety of the populace. With the Tenth Amendment being so closely tied to the Ninth, it only makes logical sense to remove any record of state or individual rights as well, lest there be any dangerous forms of dissent among citizen-subjects.
    The First Amendment provides certain problems as well, but, being that it was written into the Bill of Rights prior to any other, it should only be subject to review, and possible revision, for public safety. Hate speech, conspiracy to commit a crime, or instruction in the commission of a crime can be very dangerous. The exact limits of the freedom of speech should be clearly defined to ensure a proper level of freedom that does not go too far.
    Such primitive ideas came from the very words of such pro-gun propagandists as James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_jm.htm

    "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775) http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_paine.htm

    "...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) http://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm

    While America's “Founding Fathers”, as they are known, said such things, it was most likely in jest. Sadly, some modern thinkers, leaders, and personalities have unfortunately taken such jests seriously.

    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalli Lama
    http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...ery=Dalai+Lama

    I am told that my non-violence can be of no avail against the [Hindu–Muslim riots] and, therefore, people should arm themselves for self-defense.
    The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas., Louis Fischer, ed., 2002 (reprint edition) p. 311.

    John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - When/Where?
    Noted Psychoanalyst if often quoted as saying Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud – Page?)
    As one can plainly see, men the likes of the Dalli Lama, Mohandas Gandhi, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Sigmund Freud are clearly influenced by stagnant, outdated thoughts of men considered to be political radicals two and a half centuries ago. The fact any of them are held in esteem in modern society is truly a great mystery.
    Thankfully, there are some with the sense to know what is truly dangerous in the world, and one of these people is Congressional Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York. In a live television interview, Representative McCarthy stated a need to implement a new and expanded version of the recently at the time expired 1994 Resolution H.R. 4296, often mundanely referred to as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
    During the short interview, Tucker Carlson, the interview, noted that the proposed bill would ban weapons that “have pistol grips, a forward grip and something called a barrel shroud.” For the benefit of the members of the audience that would not know what a barrel shroud is, Carlson then asks Representative McCarthy “What is a barrel shroud and why should we regulate it?”
    Representative McCarthy, in a need to get other information out, begins to remind Carlson that HR 1022 would ban “large capacity clips”, as she puts it. Carlson then asks her again to clarify the definition of barrel shroud to her audience. Representative McCarthy then goes on to state that the arms in the original ban “were basically the gun that most gangs and criminal were using to kill our police officers.” Still in need of clarification for the less gun-savvy members of the audience, and appearing a bit agitated, Carlson then initiates the following exchange:
    Carlson: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
    McCarthy: I actually don‘t know what a barrel shroud is.
    Carlson: Oh, OK. Because it is in your legislation.
    McCarthy: I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.
    Carlson: No, it‘s not. I just—here‘s my question.
    Truly, this interview was not enough to contain her agenda.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18200226/
    Truly, this is a woman with much to say, and is so busy working to keep people safe that she can not be slowed down with pesky details such as what the target of a proposed ban does. If a few people are stepped on in the quest for safety, that is of no concern.

    HR1022, for clarification, states in Section 3, Subsection D, that a severe restriction is to be placed on any rifle that has “`(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a pistol grip; `(iv) a forward grip; or`(v) a barrel shroud.”.
    The bill essentially ensures that only special, custom-designed rifles are used for hunting, as by their centuries old designs, most hunting rifles include both forward grips and barrel shrouds, to ensure proper accuracy and prevent injury to the user. This bill would ban virtually all long arms, including hunting rifles, and if it were applicable to them, even muzzle loaders. Truly a way to keep people safe.
    The overall effect is a further reduction in the trade of arms in the country by ensuring that only the rich and powerful have access to them. Isolating arms to only the upper class, at the expense of the rights of the middle and lower class is an excellent way to cut down on crime, particularly with the common notion is that a majority of crime is committed by people living lower-class or “poorer” lifestyles.
    It is also worth noting that Section 3 also bans pipes, tubes, and handles of any kind, as well as C&C machines, computerized machines used in almost all aspects of modern manufacturing, and a vast number of as yet indeterminable articles. Items called “conversion kits” are listed as being banned, and HR 1022 defines them as “any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
    Being that a person could produce one of the banned “duplicates thereof” from the extensive list of specifically regulated models in 1022's Section 3, Subsection A, sales of pipe would have to be regulated, requiring that only licensed plumbers be allowed to purchase steel and PVC pipe, to prevent the manufacture of weapons by people in their own homes. Full federal regulation on the sale of metal stock, as well as hand and power tools would also fall under this regulation. Truly, this bill has the foresight to prevent any and all crime.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022
    HR 1022 has not been before Congress since March 19, 2007, when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. No further actions have been taken on it at the time of this writing.
    Keeping in line with this train of thought, some consideration should be given to the possibility of amending HR 1022 to include a law requiring all people conducting illegal gun sales to submit a background check with the National Instant Criminal System (NCIS). One does not know who is buying guns, particularly during illegal gun sales. With this in mind, this regulation makes perfect sense towards curtailing gun violence, particularly when put next to other measures intended to reducing violence in the streets and shopping malls of America.


    The District of Columbia has been a common hotbed of political activity, for a multitude of reasons. The fact that Washington DC has been the leader in per capita murders for many years is not a fact that can be quietly ignored.
    ----------------

    It should be noted that this entire work is political satire, and if you find yourself agreeing with it, consider the true implications of what is proposed here.

    Senator Orrin Hatch: "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Session., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).


    Automobiles must only be licensed for use upon public roads, and license is not required for the purchase of one car or of many cars. There are no waiting periods or background checks on the purchase of cars. People who misuse their cars are punished for their own actions, and particular types of cars aren't banned or taken away from those who use them safely. Unlike driving on public roads, which is a privilege, owning a gun is a right explicitly protected by the United States Constitution, and the right of self-defense is fundamental and inalienable. Licensing of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon is permissible, because, like driving, the State has an interest in maintaining public safety by ensuring as best it can that only the law-abiding carry in public. However, some supporters of the civil right to keep and bear arms oppose requiring a permit for concealed carry, and prefer a permit less system like that of Vermont, which simply punishes misuse of guns, rather than restricting their lawful use. Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms on their own property, and in defense of their homes and families, is unjust, and constitutes prior restraint.


    --Closing line? “Don't believe the lie that guns are the great equalizer. A 120 lb. woman should be fully capable of fighting off a 220 lb. man" It is completely sexist to think otherwise.

    --Cops – No duty to protect
    Many addled minds believe that possession of arms are some form of right
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    It seems... interesting. But a little too confrontational to be effective, I think. You bring up good points, but ones that would take 10-15 pages each to properly cite and flesh out. To an anti reader, they will just get relegated to the bin of "crazy things the gun nuts say".

    YHM

  23. #23
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I haven't read it closely enough to attempt to critique it yet, but one thing jumps out immediately to my eye. Your title is never explained anywhere in the text. I looked for any history on gun control and its relation to minorities (the colored folk) and unless I skimmed right past it, doesn't seem to be there.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    That's because I did that last.

    I take no responsibility for the formatting that ends up on the below text.

    Gun Control: It's not just for Colored People Anymore
    A recurring theme in modern politics is the issue of whether the common citizen is entitled to the right to own and carry arms. Typically, this argument is considered “Gun Control versus Gun Rights.”
    Gun rights are, concisely defined, the right to keep and bear arms. They are often called “Second Amendment rights”, as the Second Amendment reads, “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.” (US Constitution, Article 2)
    One point of dispute in this statement is the definition of what constitutes “the militia”. For a more clarity, we turn to 10 U.S.C. § 311, which reads as follows:
    Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are -
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.
    In short, the federal standard is all healthy men age 17 – 45 that are, or say they wish to become US citizens, and any women that are signed with the National Guard. Gun control, by and large, could then be said to severely limit the readiness of the unorganized militia. If the militia is considered a valid form of national defense, why then, would anyone want to restrict the militia to the access of weapons?
    Going back in history reveals the origins of the regulation of firearms. In his 1993 paper, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control", Clayton E. Cramer details many racist laws enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. He draws upon Thomas Ingersoll's Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans to show the exclusionary nature of North America's first gun laws.
    “Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. 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." Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions.” (MS Black Codes)
    After the Louisiana Purchase, things did not change with regards to weapon ownership for “African Americanes and mulattoes”, as they are often referred to in these laws. Mississippi's Black Code of 1865, under the Penal Code section, is one of the early examples of the regulation of the carry and ownership of weapons in the United States.
    "Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that no freedman, free African American, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk, or Bowie knife; and, on conviction thereof in the county court... all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free African American, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed for trial in default of bail." (Mississippi Black Codes, Section 1)
    Indeed, Mississippi's laws were so severe, they created a period of indentured servitude if the violator could not or would not pay the fine or fines for any offenses listed within this code. Essentially, this was state-sponsored slavery.
    “If any freedman, free African American, or mulatto, convicted of any of the misdemeanors provided against in this act, shall fail or refuse for the space of five days, after conviction, to pay the fine and costs imposed, such person shall be hired out by the sheriff or other officer, at public outcry, to any white person who will pay said fine and all costs, and take said convict for the shortest time.” (Mississippi Black Codes, Section 5)
    It should be noted that this section of code automatically denies bail to any “African American or mulatto” jailed for violation of this law, as well as makes the reporter of such a crime the new owner of the weapon in question. Here we have one of the first examples of a mandatory sentence for gun crimes, something lauded greatly in this day and age. A minor question then comes up as to whether or not such laws are in the same spirit of those in the past.
    In December of 1997, a student in what was once a little-known high school in Jefferson County, CO submitted a paper entitled “Guns in Schools” which detailed, presumably some from his own experiences on campus, that “It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator.” (Harris 1)
    The author of the paper was Eric Harris, one of two young men who brought the issue of gun control to the forefront of national concerns following the infamous Columbine shootings. Mr. Harris, with the aid of his accomplice Dylan Klebold, showed just how dangerous uncontested gunmen can be on a campus. The pair were able to wreak havoc on the unarmed students without challenge. The slaughter only ended on their own terms, when the gunmen took their own lives, while police and hastily assembled SWAT teams stood in the distance.
    The actions of Mr. Harris demonstrated that 24 minutes is far too long to wait for police response. By that same token, waiting over an hour for a SWAT team while the local police department was forced to hide demonstrates vividly that the police can not be everywhere to protect everyone. (AColumbineSite.com)
    Indeed, it has become established case law that local police have no duty to protect individuals, only the public at large. The originating case for this is often cited is South versus Maryland. The case in question involves Sheriff South, who refused to arrest men at the behest of Johnathan Pottle. Pottle demanded police protection from an armed mob that had cornered Pottle and a group of his men in a house. The judge for the case found that allowing for lawsuits against law enforcement for failures to protect individuals, intentional or accidental, would expose them to excessive liability.
    With no liability from the police for protection, the Second Amendment is truly the enforcement amendment - with just that one removed, the rest of the document is easily crumbled. Some that would argue the right of one to self defense is a bit outdated, and should be repealed due to obsolescence.
    To that end, one could argue for voiding the Third Amendment, and, in keeping with the growing trend of Imminent Domain, allowing for members of the military and national guard the use of people's homes for an indeterminate period. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping citizens safe from crime, as armed soldiers would be living in the homes of the American people.
    The Fourth Amendment is another troublesome problem that could be done away with as we continue our modernization of the Bill of Rights. Allowing for unreasonable search and seizure by government officials, including local, state, and federal police agencies would ensure that persons harboring now-illegal weapons would be unable to hide them. The benefits of public safety would reach until new levels.
    The Fifth Amendment can be disposed of as well, for similar reasons to the Fourth. Allowing people to get away with not admitting to having dangerous items in the midst of an official investigation, and subsequent trial allows an unverified number of potentially dangerous people the ability to escape prosecution at the hands of what can only be considered a just and fair trial.
    With the danger of guns gone, the only crime that will be committed will be gun crimes, and if a an officer of the law says you have a dangerous firearm of any type, it should be prima facia evidence of your guilt, thus negating the need for a trial, your rights as an accused person, or the need for a trial by a jury of your peers. Indeed, with these reasons pointing out the glaringly superannuated nature of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, excessive bail would not be an issue, as most, if not all crime will have stopped at this point. With this in mind, one can safely write off the Eighth Amendment as no longer needed.
    Unfortunately, at this point, there may become a problem wherein people may insist they have the right to other kinds of dangerous ideas or items, possibly even weapons. For these reasons, the Ninth Amendment will most likely have to be stricken from the books, to ensure continued safety of the populace. With the Tenth Amendment being so closely tied to the Ninth, it only makes logical sense to remove any record of state or individual rights as well, lest there be any dangerous forms of dissent among citizen-subjects.
    The First Amendment provides certain problems as well, but, being that it was written into the Bill of Rights prior to any other, it should only be subject to review, and possible revision, for public safety. Hate speech, conspiracy to commit a crime, or instruction in the commission of a crime can be very dangerous. The exact limits of the freedom of speech should be clearly defined to ensure a proper level of freedom that does not go too far.
    The above is a potentially disturbing trend of the erosion of our rights and freedoms. It shows the slippery slope that one begins to traverse as freedoms are limited, with increasing infringements that seem reasonable at the time, but when taken in all at once, are quite unnerving.
    In a rush such as this to “protect” government-dependent citizens, some members of the government do not even realize what it is they are protecting the citizens from. In a live television interview, Congressional Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York stated a need to implement a new and expanded version of the expired 1994 Resolution House Resolution (H.R.) 4296, mundanely referred to as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
    During the short interview, Tucker Carlson, the interviewer, noted that the proposed bill would ban weapons that “have pistol grips, a forward grip and something called a barrel shroud.” For the benefit of the members of the audience that would not know what a barrel shroud is, Carlson then asks Representative McCarthy “What is a barrel shroud and why should we regulate it?”
    Representative McCarthy instead begins to remind Carlson that HR 1022 would ban “large capacity clips”, as she puts it. Carlson then asks her again to clarify the definition of barrel shroud to her audience. Representative McCarthy then goes on to state that the arms in the original ban “were basically the gun that most gangs and criminal were using to kill our police officers.” Still in need of clarification for the less gun-savvy members of the audience, and appearing a bit agitated, Carlson then initiates the following exchange:
    Carlson: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
    McCarthy: I actually don‘t know what a barrel shroud is.
    Carlson: Oh, OK. Because it is in your legislation.
    McCarthy: I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.
    Carlson: No, it‘s not. (Tucker)

    Truly, this is a Representative so busy working to keep people safe that she can not be slowed down with pesky details such as what the target of a proposed ban does. If a few people are stepped on in the quest for safety, that is of no concern in her mind, it appears.
    HR1022, for clarification, states in Section 3, Subsection D, that a severe restriction is to be placed on any rifle that has “`(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a pistol grip; `(iv) a forward grip; or`(v) a barrel shroud.”.
    The bill essentially ensures that only special, custom-designed rifles are used for hunting, as by their centuries old designs, most hunting rifles include both forward grips and barrel shrouds, to ensure proper accuracy and prevent injury to the user. This bill would ban virtually all long arms, including hunting rifles, and if it were applicable to them, even muzzle loaders. Truly a way to keep people safe.
    The overall effect is a further reduction in the trade of arms in the country by ensuring that only the rich and powerful have access to them. Isolating arms to only the upper class, at the expense of the rights of the middle and lower class is an excellent way to cut down on crime, particularly with the common notion is that a majority of crime is committed by people living lower-class or “poorer” lifestyles.
    It is also worth noting that Section 3 also bans pipes, tubes, and handles of any kind, as well as C&C machines, computerized machines used in almost all aspects of modern manufacturing, and a vast number of as yet indeterminable articles. Items called “conversion kits” are listed as being banned, and HR 1022 defines them as “any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
    Being that a person could produce one of the banned “duplicates thereof” from the extensive list of specifically regulated models in 1022's Section 3, Subsection A, sales of pipe would have to be regulated, requiring that only licensed plumbers be allowed to purchase steel and PVC pipe, to prevent the manufacture of weapons by people in their own homes. Full federal regulation on the sale of metal stock, as well as hand and power tools would also fall under this regulation. Truly, this bill has the foresight to prevent any and all crime.
    HR 1022 has not been before Congress since March 19, 2007, when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. No further actions have been taken on it at the time of this writing.

    It could be argued that, in keeping in line with the intentions of this bill, some consideration should be given to the possibility of amending HR 1022 to include a law requiring all people conducting illegal gun sales to submit a background check with the National Instant Criminal System (NCIS). One does not know who is buying guns, particularly during illegal gun sales. With this in mind, this regulation makes perfect sense towards curtailing gun violence, particularly when put next to other measures intended to reducing violence in the streets and shopping malls of America.
    In closing, gun control has already been well commented on by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, when he stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Congress,
    "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
    Works Cited
    AColumbineSite.com. "The SWAT Team and other Officials" 2 Dec 07 http://acolumbinesite.com/swat.html
    Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, "Mississippi Black Code"
    2 Dec 07 http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/code.html
    McCarthy, Carolyn. Interview Tucker. MSNBC 18 Apr 07
    Senator Orrin Hatch, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Congress, 2d Session., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Committee 1 January 1982
    South v. State of Maryland for use of Pottle, 59 U.S. 396 (1855) 2 Dec 07 http://supreme.justia.com/us/59/396/case.html
    US House of Representatives, H.R. 1022 2 Dec 07 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

Posting Permissions

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