POLITICS - gun control as racism

[rimrock]

In the thread about private transfers in Texas, cubrock said:
"Incidentally, I've been told the pistol purchase permit was instituted back in the day so that sheriffs could keep guns out of the hands of minorities so there wouldn't be any insurrections. Wonder if that is true? If so, it wouldn't be the first gun law that was racially motivated and now supported by the party that supposedly champions minority rights."

For some apparent factual basis for this belief, see the link at www.blackmanwithagun.com. Sure got me to thinking--could we stop the nonsense of gun control if we brought out these facts every time some bleeding heart liberal seeks to impose some more bad history on us. Maybe we could put some of the most usless politicians out to pasture with these types of facts.

[Ysabel Kid]

rimrock -

Yep, the gun control movement started as a way to deny firearms to freed slaves. As you can imagine the thought of thousands of armed folks rightfully holding something of a grudge didn't sit well with the folks in the south. Additionally, though liberals are apparently too dense to understand the basic thought, the individual possession of arms differentiates a free person from all others.

I think that is the problem today. The socialists don't want us to be free - they want us dependent on the state, and quietly serving it as our only master. So though one can easily equate gun control with racism, and the left is supposedly the champions of minorities, they will not make that leap because it encourages independence - and they need reliance on the welfare state - especially by minorities - to ensure their voting block.

But heck, if the left actually cared about minorities one wit other than as a voting block, would they treat them the way they do? It is disgusting to look at another human being and say "you can't..." because of the color of your skin. The "you can't" is anything - especially compete on equal terms with whites. The left has been the home of true racism for decades...

[Griff]

Well put Ysabel Kid.

[AJMD429]

For some apparent factual basis for this belief, see the link at www.blackmanwithagun.com.

Also if you can find it, "Gun Control - the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" by Don B. Kates. There are several chapters exploring the racist origin of gun control to disarm those who didn't "qualify" for a permit (of course the Klan got theirs). It is a good book to loan out to liberals who think that just because they are "pro-environment" or "advocates for the poor" or some other word-gibberish, that they are SUPPOSED therefore to be anti-gun. It helps them realize gun control laws are things of Klansmen and Nazis. Kates you can find on the internet and is a LIBERAL ACLU-member criminologist who has the intellectual honesty to admit that having extensively studied 'gun control' - it is a fraud.

See "Guns and Public Health - epidemic of violence, or pandemic of propaganda" by Kates and several physician co-authors from the Tennessee Law Review, on our website http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html, and print out copies to give (after you highlight some of the good stuff for them). A couple of my favorite parts:

The abysmal quality of the anti-gun health advocacy literature may be explained by six conceptually discrete factors: intellectual and locutional sloppiness; intellectual confusion; ignorance of criminological or other facts; fraudulent omission of material fact, or statement of part of the fact calculated to deceive by the suppression of the whole;[63] overt misrepresentation of facts; and what we call gun-aversive dyslexia--a reading disability engendered by a fear and loathing of guns so profound that health advocate sages who encounter adverse facts may be honestly unable to comprehend them.

Look at what Kates says, in print, in a law review journal, about the Center for Disease Control...

Even more unfortunately, CDC and other health advocate sages build their case not only by suppressing facts, but by overt fraud, fabricating statistics, and falsifying references to support them.[261] The following are but a few of the many examples documented in a recent paper co-authored by professors at Columbia Medical School and Rutgers University Law School.

The first instance represents a lamentable exception to our generalization that comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates through the 1970s and 1980s find no place in the health advocacy literature.[262] Some health sages go so far as to overtly misrepresent that murder rates increased over that period, and then correlate this misrepresentation with the same period's steadily increasing gun ownership so as to lend spurious support to their more-guns-mean-more-murder shibboleth. Thus, a 1989 Report to the United States Congress by the CDC stated that "[s]ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."[263] We leave it to the readers of (p.577)this Article to judge how a 69% increase in handgun ownership over the fifteen year period from 1974 to 1988 could honestly be described as having "paralleled" a 14.2% decrease in homicide during that same period.[264]

The article is about 80 pages long, and fully 1/3 of it is the detailed footnotes, so it is a serious indictment of the FRAUD the media so willingly accepts as 'gun control.' I print copies and slip them in the 'gun control' books in the library and my kids accidentally leave them in the books in the school library from time to time (to counter the propaganda in the books the schools allow on the topic). I also leave them in doctor's and hospital waiting rooms, and I mail or e-mail copies to politicians to educate them or give the pro-gun ones something solid to back up what they say when they are inevitably accused of just being shills for the NRA. I supply the article as a "source of further information" to any journalist who signs a pro-or-anti-gun article, rather than just argue with them, and they often read it and respond appropriately.

Thanks to Kates et al. for having the gonads to publish such an article.
Our site has lots of resources in the "favorite links" and I am working on a bibliography of others.

The MAIN PROBLEM is that the anti-s tend to be urban academic groupie types who 'network' and have personal friends in academia, media, and politics, and the pro-gun people are individualistic, self-sufficient, and live in a more real-world environment. We'd better get out of that world and fight gun control NOW though, even if we'd rather spend the time sighting in a new rifle, because the 'romantic' notion of 'from my cold dead fingers' is still not an attractive option if you can turn things around in the war of public opinion. MOST people come around to being pro-gun if you gently supply them the appropriate information; otherwise if you just ignore the problem it will get worse, and we know ALL of the masses will reflexively become more anti-gun if you just shout at them.

[Old Savage]

A teacher in Lancaster said - grandmothers in Compton who need protection can't have it but Diane Fienstein can have a guard with a semi automatic. Blatantly RACIST !!!!!!!!!!!

[Old Savage]

Gotta love the dems that make the laws.

[Leverdude]

We got the 14th ammendment to ensure states respected constitutional rights. Got put in there to keep some southern states from denying guns to blacks for the most part, but it sure seems to indicate that states cant over regulate, or let municipalities in their borders over regulate gun ownership.

[20cows]

In Texas, the first gun control laws were put in place by "carpet bagger" politicians wanting to dissarm angry Confederates returning home to find someone else in charge.

[Hobie]

And those laws didn't work with outlaws either.

Look at the Sullivan Law in NYC, created specifically to disarm political opponents.

[Old Time Hunter]

Ysabel got it right, at least from my perspective. Unfortunately it has also evolved into a "class" segregation more than a race. All the powers that be do not want the Joe Lunch Boxes to have means to defend themselves against tyranny, especially the priviledged ruling class (i.e. DEMOCRATS!!!) that are all born wealthy. The democrats pander to the lower echlons of the social-economic order, but their leaders are all from the blue blood aristocracy....the same ones that made the gun laws to prevent the freed slaves from procurring the means to defend themselves.

[cubrock]

And those laws didn't work with outlaws either.

Look at the Sullivan Law in NYC, created specifically to disarm political opponents.

Hobie brings up a good point here. Both the Sullivan Law in NYC and the National Firearms Act of 1935 were heavily supported by certain families in the Mafia. The idea was to disarm their rival families, but they would always have the connections to get the guns they wanted.

Isn't it interesting that the law that did the most to disarm us as a nation as far as the Founding Fathers are concerned (the NFA) was put in place largely by organized crime? Generations later, no one is willing to question the law and are aghast that people like me want it repealed and they don't even take the time to research its origins.

[Old Ironsights]

For some apparent factual basis for this belief, see the link at www.blackmanwithagun.com.

Also if you can find it, "Gun Control - the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" by Don B. Kates. There are several chapters exploring the racist origin of gun control to disarm those who didn't "qualify" for a permit (of course the Klan got theirs). It is a good book to loan out to liberals who think that just because they are "pro-environment" or "advocates for the poor" or some other word-gibberish, that they are SUPPOSED therefore to be anti-gun. It helps them realize gun control laws are things of Klansmen and Nazis. Kates you can find on the internet and is a LIBERAL ACLU-member criminologist who has the intellectual honesty to admit that having extensively studied 'gun control' - it is a fraud...

I have 2 copies of that book. I loan them out frequently.

[JohndeFresno]

In California, Gun Control is most certainly political, unfair, and prone to corruption.

You are at the mercy of the local City Council (e.g. that crazy San Francisco) and the local County Sheriff, where our chances of ever obtaining a Concealed Weapons Permit vary drastically from one county to another, depending on which top lawman is elected in a particular year. But, of course, healthy political donations grease the skids.

And an alleged "safety test" mandated by our Attorney General (starting with the Clinton era) restricts which guns are even available here, even if they are indeed safe.

I posted a fairly lengthy first-person expose of this in my state under "OT - Livin in Calif" on this site.