Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: The Racist Origins of the Second Amendment

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

    Post imported post

    Gun Guys wrote:
    The looming Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case challenging DC's 30-year-old handgun ban, seems to be completely off the radar. Although there was a dramatic surge of attention when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March, very few articles, editorials, and news stories are being written about the long term viability of gun control in light of the Court's expected ruling. Absent from the Court's oral arguments was also a full vetting of the political and social context when the Second Amendment was written -- including the racist origins and purpose of the Second Amendment (see below).

    It's as if the country is asleep at the wheel while a potential attack on America's freedom and ability to prevent and reduce gun violence is happening right before our very eyes. The Supreme Court holds in its hands the awesome responsibility of allowing and empowering the American people the "right" and the ability to reduce gun violence, protect our communities and national security. Lives are at stake. This is no hypothetical or dry legal theory we're debating.

    To be sure, no one knows exactly how the Court will rule in the DC handgun ban case. But gun violence prevention advocates fear that the Court's conservative members could enshrine a new interpretation of the Second Amendment that "individuals" have a "right to keep and bear arms" -- a complete departure from the Court's own longstanding precedent and the robust history of gun control since the founding of our country.

    Even if the Supreme Court ruling aligns itself more closely with the gun lobby interpretation, gun control laws will not immediately evaporate. But the impact of such a ruling would give ammunition to the gun lobby to challenge virtually any and all gun laws on the books on the federal, state and local level and consume enormous resources defending and litigating gun violence prevention measures.

    The effect could be devastating, and yet there is very little discussion or debate about the potential of this shell-shocking case to American law and culture. Several legal analysts think that the Supreme Court will issue it's ruling sometime in mid-June of this year in a matter of weeks.

    Perhaps most galling of all is that during the oral arguments to the Supreme Court, the justices seemed to be arguing the Second Amendment in a parallel universe.

    In a remarkable essay first published in Mother Jones on March 20th Stephanie Mencimer writes in "Whitewashing the Second Amendment" about the racist origins of the Second Amendment.

    At the very least it would be helpful if the justices decided the DC handgun ban case on an accurate reading of the social and political context, original documents, and an understanding of the history when the Second Amendment was actually written. (Justice Scalia who prides himself on being an ardent "originalist" should take note).

    Stephanie Mencimer's remarkable essay is worth quoting at length:

    "Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.

    First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home.

    Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner.

    That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

    Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said.

    Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery. (Riiiiight...)

    This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus.In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

    None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")

    Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.

    In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men. (Well no ****, Sherlock. When the vast majority of violent crime in WA DC is being commited by young African American males, of course this is going to have a large (about .45 cal in diameter) impact on them!)

    Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns."


    Wow, just wow.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Wow, that's hilarious.

    The gun-grabbers apparently want it both ways - one moment, they're claiming that the original context of the Second Amendment is "outdated" and "irrelevant" and therefore should not be considered, and the next they're claiming that context was racist and is therefore an argument against contemporary gun rights!

    The fact notwithstanding that this person's claims are simply ridiculous, this is a lovely little bit of cognitive dissonance.

    One thing in particular that stood out:

    Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
    John Payton is obviously without a clue when it comes to constitutional law. What "new power to disarm state militias?" Where in the Constitution is that authority granted to the federal government, I wonder? It seems he does not even understand the most basic principles of the structure of our government.

  3. #3
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Stealth Potato wrote:
    John Payton is obviously without a clue when it comes to constitutional law.
    That's why he's w/ the NAACP. :P

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.

    And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Where is my puke gif when I need it.


    Tarzan

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Since D.C. is a place where Blacks outnumber whites, the NAACP is primarilystripping thecivil rights ofAfrican Americansbyagreeing that no-one in D.C. should havesecond amendment rights.

    Web Page: The Racist Origins of Gun Control : http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    USAF_MetalChris wrote:
    Stealth Potato wrote:
    John Payton is obviously without a clue when it comes to constitutional law.
    That's why he's w/ the NAACP. :P
    Payton and his boss Julian Bond are modern day uncle toms working for the white liberal extreme left.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.

    And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
    My wife's from Salvador, Brasil - the slave capitol of the country and we visited there for 3.5 weeks this past Christmas and New Years and guess what? There is no racism there. The Europeans, the Africans, the Indians....they're ALL BRASILIANS FIRST.

    But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.






  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NoVa by way of Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.

    And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
    My wife's from Salvador, Brasil - the slave capitol of the country and we visited there for 3.5 weeks this past Christmas and New Years and guess what? There is no racism there. The Europeans, the Africans, the Indians....they're ALL BRASILIANS FIRST.

    But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.





    most look for racism to present itself in a americanized form.

    but racism in brazil and other latin american countries, as subtle as it may be still exists.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedi...rt3/index.html

    http://www.brazzil.com/p16oct96.htm




  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    dkd wrote:
    most look for racism to present itself in a americanized form.

    but racism in brazil and other latin american countries, as subtle as it may be still exists.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedi...rt3/index.html

    http://www.brazzil.com/p16oct96.htm


    By "Americanized", you mean KKK/Neo-Nazi public demonstrations and "<Minority of Choice> Go Home!" protests over illegal immigration?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.
    I don't know about the Ferengi Empire but absolutely correct on the money being made in racism. I'm not going to call any names but there are a lot of people that their livelyhood definitly depends on keeping racism alive and well and do everything they can to see that it flourishes. Unfortunately their followers can't see that and perfectly willing to drink the kool-aid.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    Where is my puke gif when I need it.


    Tarzan
    I found it.



    Tarzan


    Attached Images Attached Images

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Those who would like the other side of this coin--with some nice documentation to boot--should read Clayton Cramer's essay, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control."

    It can be found at a number of sites with a google search, but this one reads as well as any: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

    In the essay, Cramer argues convincingly that the history of so-called "gun control" laws in this nation is so tied to racism and denial of rights based on race that all such laws should be viewed as part of a "suspect class" of laws when they are up for judicial review. Laws viewed in such a way have such a history of being used for discrimination that the going in position before the courts is that they are unconstitutional and the burden falls on those supporting the law to prove it is not.

    As an example, while one could make a very good case for a literacy test before voting, such tests have such history of being used to deny voting rights based on race that any court looking at such a requirement to vote is going to start from the position that any such test is a violation of voting rights until it can be proven they are not having the intent nor effect of denying the franchise based on race or other protected category.

    In any event, I would argue that those most likely to be victims of crimes are the ones who are most likely to benefit from being able to legally possess the means of self defense. After all, 285 pound body builders traveling around with 5 of their lifting/marital arts buddies are a LOT less likely to be mugged than is a lone, 110 pound, black, gay, Jewish woman who may be victimized for any number of reasons including perceived inability to put up a fight or one form of prejudice or another. The lone woman beneifts a LOT more from having a gun than does the gang of men.

    In any event, Cramer's essay is a great read, and will only take about 10 minutes.

    Charles


    EDIT: Fixed Link - BobCav
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    The link doesn't work for me :X

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    icode wrote:
    The link doesn't work for me :X
    Remove the last period from the URL.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    dkd wrote:
    BobCav wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.

    And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
    My wife's from Salvador, Brasil - the slave capitol of the country and we visited there for 3.5 weeks this past Christmas and New Years and guess what? There is no racism there. The Europeans, the Africans, the Indians....they're ALL BRASILIANS FIRST.

    But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.
    most look for racism to present itself in a americanized form.

    but racism in brazil and other latin american countries, as subtle as it may be still exists.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedi...rt3/index.html

    http://www.brazzil.com/p16oct96.htm
    Good point and I stand corrected and should have said they don't have racism like we have here. We've perfected it and profited from it, while they have for the most part, gotten over it and moved on.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    like_the_roman wrote:
    icode wrote:
    The link doesn't work for me :X
    Remove the last period from the URL.
    Um yeah, didn't catch that one Thanks!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.

    understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.

    I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.

    the single largest racist organization in America today is the NAACP, and yet they are the ones who repeatedly wish to deem everything, but themselves, to be a part of some mass global caucasian conspiracy designed to oppress teh black man.

    why in the world can America not actually debate issues and try to show how your side is right, instead of making everything about race and trying to prove that the other side is racist? that article makes me nautious in ways that I never knew I could be nautious.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.

    understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.

    I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.
    Well, that's the interesting thing... while blacks are statistically committing more crimes, they are also disproportionately crime victims. But coupled with the fact that gun control hits blacks harder than whites (lower socioeconomic status gives them less money to pay for their rights, may issue states encourage racist discrimination, etc), blacks are disarmed when they in fact need to be armed more than whites. It's fairly ridiculous that the people who most want to "save" blacks from gun violence, through gun control, are in effect putting them at a greater risk of being victims.

    Anyhow, the "racism" trump card is indeed ridiculous, but then again so are the "Muslim", "illegal immigrant", and other cards we see around here all the time.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.

    understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.

    I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.

    the single largest racist organization in America today is the NAACP, and yet they are the ones who repeatedly wish to deem everything, but themselves, to be a part of some mass global caucasian conspiracy designed to oppress teh black man.

    why in the world can America not actually debate issues and try to show how your side is right, instead of making everything about race and trying to prove that the other side is racist? that article makes me nautious in ways that I never knew I could be nautious.
    The "problem" is that the NAACP, Al Sharp, Jesse Jackson and their ilk make soooo damn much money off of racism They will NEVER let it die.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    icode wrote:
    The "problem" is that the NAACP, Al Sharp, Jesse Jackson and their ilk make soooo damn much money off of racism They will NEVER let it die.
    exactly my point. since they can't make any more money off of "racial equality", they must now promote black Supremacy, which is all raced based initiatives like "affirmative action" is all about.

  23. #23
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.
    Well, when the slaves were freed there were jimcrow laws that discriminated against the right to bear arms for Blacks in addition to their other rights such as voting etc. The Jim crow laws were racist. Modern proponents of gun control activists may not be racist, but 1865-1900 laws mostly were targeted intentionallyat African Americans. Of course, no-one today is passing laws that strictly bar off immigrants and Blacks from owning guns like they used to in the distant past, but they still want to ban cheap guns which, perhaps unintentionally to modern gun control activists, has the similar effect of making it harder for minorities to own guns since immigrants oftentake low paying jobs.

    I was talking to someone who supported bans on "saturday night specials" and their reasoning was that poor neighborhoods are more violent. (As opposed to other proponents of bans who say they are "throw-away guns" to murder people with and then toss away). My response was that if poor neighborhoods are dangerous that's an evenbetter reason for poor people to be able to defend themselves. Even if no race is played here, I would say that the idea of banning cheap guns, (at least by the reasons of the person I talked to), isdiscriminatory, at the least, towards poor people.

    I agree with you that it is lame to call everything racist. I only bring up the racist roots of some of the most stringent attempts to disarm people in the U.S. when people try to tell me the 2nd Amendment is racist or the NRA is racist. I've even had people tell me that the NRA was buddies with the KKK. I always mention then that Ulysses S. Grant was a president of the NRA after he was president of the United States and used the military to pursue the KKK in the anti-klan acts. (And that the NRA was started by Union officers after the civil war.) I've also read how after the civil war some African Americans went armed to the polls in order to vote without being intimidated by racists who were doing what they could to stop them. I'd say thats a good argument against banning the carrying of firearms. Even if people aren't so racist today, whose to say who will be discriminated against in the future who could benefit by being armed. Guns tend to level the playing field a bit.

    Not all gun control activists are racists, but gun control, like virtually every other restrictionhas been used at times to supress people based on race.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.

    understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.

    I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.

    the single largest racist organization in America today is the NAACP, and yet they are the ones who repeatedly wish to deem everything, but themselves, to be a part of some mass global caucasian conspiracy designed to oppress teh black man.

    why in the world can America not actually debate issues and try to show how your side is right, instead of making everything about race and trying to prove that the other side is racist? that article makes me nautious in ways that I never knew I could be nautious.
    I, too, am tired of all of this crap. Whites are discriminated against far to much and it gets old. (proof: execitive orders 11246 and 11375).

    Ref your comment about blacks committing more crimes than whites, that is true. Around 10+ years ago, 57% of the violent crimes in the US were committed by blacks. In more recent years, Central and South Americans have altered that percentage significantly. But it didn't use to be that way. Sixty years ago, blacks committed fewer violent crimes than whites. What do you think happened in the interim? The answer would take me a little while to write out but it has to do with huge social changes.

    Currently minorities, and another elephant, are the major discriminators in the US (the other elephant being the government). Race and racial recognition converts to money and power.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.

    understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.

    I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.

    the single largest racist organization in America today is the NAACP, and yet they are the ones who repeatedly wish to deem everything, but themselves, to be a part of some mass global caucasian conspiracy designed to oppress teh black man.

    why in the world can America not actually debate issues and try to show how your side is right, instead of making everything about race and trying to prove that the other side is racist? that article makes me nautious in ways that I never knew I could be nautious.
    Your avatar reminds me of a discussion I had with Johnny Reb friends on a Vietnam Veterans forum. Born in IL and living in New England for the longest stretch of my life, I would have fought with the North in the Civil War as they would have the South. However, my point to them was if there ever was a second Civil War, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Kansas and many other Yankee stateswould fight with AL, MS, TX etc because it would be over our right to keep and bear firearms.

    I also believe CORE filed an amicus brief in support of Heller. So not all Black organizations follow the idiots in the NAACP. Decent Black people need a firearm in DC more than the wealthy who live in Fairfax. Some Black leaders have the brains to understand that. To say the 2nd Amendment is racist is the biggest pile of BS I've heard yet. In keeping with the 14th, it is 180 degrees opposite racism.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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