Racism and Gun Control


CalicoJack10

New member
I find it interesting that this subject has been avidly pushed to the back burner in almost all gun debates. I have done a ton a research, and there are millions of things out there that talk about Hitler's gun control, but it seems that this is a subject nobody wants to tackle. I did find a seriously well written paper for the George Mason University Civil Law Journal from 1991. This is some serious reading, but it still almost doesn't even hint at the fact that gun control for minorities also has historically applied to Economic Status.

Gun Control and Racism

I am kinda wondering if anyone out there has any idea why this subject has not been brought up so thoroughly since 1981. Seems to me that those that would choose to revoke the rite to own guns are usually well off, and have never been victims of an actual violent crime themselves.

Being someone who grew up in the "Inner City", and someone who has had to fight tooth and nail to make a life for himself (Even to this day), I can tell you that a majority of criminals would never attack someone with a gun. So I am wondering what other reason there could be for such limitations on our freedoms.

Also, in a day and age where people are doing everything they can to get away from racism, segregation, and so on, why is this idea based on racism thriving in America? It seems to me that this should be thrown at the people who would take away our freedoms. All it takes is 1 simple question.

Why do you so avidly support an ideal that is based entirely in the subjugation of another race or economic class?
 

Wasn't the first gun control law, about slaves not owning or possessing guns?

Or was it freed slaves?

Not all slaves were black. So, is it still racism?
 
Your question is a good one but from my experience I find that in todays society the ones that fight against fun rights the most are also those that seem to yell racism the loudest. You would think that the ones living in the inner city would be the ones wanting guns and fighting the hardest for the overturn of gun laws but I seem to find the opposite true. Just making a broad unfounded statement of opinion here but to me:

Liberals=wanting laws against racism=wanting laws against guns=inner city without guns.

I have no answer other than it appears that your finding of the origin of gun law is correct but has no bearing on todays thoughts on gun control.
 
here is a quote from the Law Journal entry that linked to:

"In 1640, the first recorded restrictive legislation concerning blacks in Virginia excluding them from owning a gun."

it says

"Virginia law set Negro's apart from all other groups by...by denying them the important rite to bear arms. Few restraints could indicate more clearly the denial to Negro's of membership in the white community. This first for shadowing of the slave codes came in 1640, at just the time when other indications first appeared that Negro's were subject to special treatment."

And as far as FN's equation, I agree totally.

Liberals == Wanting Laws Against Racism == Wanting Laws against Guns == Inner City Without Guns

That equation is exactly why this is so confusing, if they are fighting so hard against racism and racist ideals, then why do they cling to this one so tightly? And the inner city rarely talks about gun control laws because most of the armed people in the inner city (Speaking from experience here) don't care if there are laws that restrict their firearms. They will own/carry/shoot them regardless of what they laws say.
 
I will have to disagree with you, Calico, on your statement that most of the gun-control advocates are from affluent areas. The most anti-gun elected officials in my area are both minorities and come from inner city areas. Their belief seems to be that if there were no guns there would be no crime, no matter what part of city it is. They were the ones most opposed to any concealed carry whatsoever.
 
Fair enough FLASCONVA, I think that it is going to be a debate of opinion there, and that would take us way off topic, so I think I am going to bow out of that one while I have the chance, and revert to my original question.

I think the truth is that no matter who it is that is trying to ban guns, there is a general "I am not the one that is racist" tone to America. So if we are dealing with laws that were originally based in racism, why is it that we don't point out that this is a racist ideal?
 
I find it interesting that this subject has been avidly pushed to the back burner in almost all gun debates. I have done a ton a research, and there are millions of things out there that talk about Hitler's gun control, but it seems that this is a subject nobody wants to tackle. I did find a seriously well written paper for the George Mason University Civil Law Journal from 1991. This is some serious reading, but it still almost doesn't even hint at the fact that gun control for minorities also has historically applied to Economic Status.

Gun Control and Racism

I am kinda wondering if anyone out there has any idea why this subject has not been brought up so thoroughly since 1981. Seems to me that those that would choose to revoke the rite to own guns are usually well off, and have never been victims of an actual violent crime themselves.

Being someone who grew up in the "Inner City", and someone who has had to fight tooth and nail to make a life for himself (Even to this day), I can tell you that a majority of criminals would never attack someone with a gun. So I am wondering what other reason there could be for such limitations on our freedoms.

Also, in a day and age where people are doing everything they can to get away from racism, segregation, and so on, why is this idea based on racism thriving in America? It seems to me that this should be thrown at the people who would take away our freedoms. All it takes is 1 simple question.

Why do you so avidly support an ideal that is based entirely in the subjugation of another race or economic class?

It was either Marx or Lenin who said that one man, with a gun, can control a hundred people. These anti-gun people don't give a ding damn about racism, it is all about control. They do not like the fact that they do not control your destiny.
 
Wasn't the first gun control law, about slaves not owning or possessing guns?

Or was it freed slaves?

Not all slaves were black. So, is it still racism?

Yes, and one other point that never seems to come out in the evening news - is that around 450,000 whites died fighting each other over preserving the Union and freeing the slaves. I believe the first gun control laws were passed in the South after the Civil War was over, so that blacks could not get firearms. Unfair, but true.:wacko:
 
The majority of the initial gun control laws were implemented after the civil war, but there were recorded laws back to 1640.
 
Not about racism

Fair enough FLASCONVA, I think that it is going to be a debate of opinion there, and that would take us way off topic, so I think I am going to bow out of that one while I have the chance, and revert to my original question.

I think the truth is that no matter who it is that is trying to ban guns, there is a general "I am not the one that is racist" tone to America. So if we are dealing with laws that were originally based in racism, why is it that we don't point out that this is a racist ideal?

Today's efforts to ban guns are not about racism. They want to ban guns for EVERYONE, regardless of race. I think they are either so stupid and/or illogical to think that criminals won't have guns if they're made illegal. That is so patently stupid that it's laughable. Legality means nothing to criminals; that's why they're criminals!
 
Tired of the RACE CARD

It was either Marx or Lenin who said that one man, with a gun, can control a hundred people. These anti-gun people don't give a ding damn about racism, it is all about control. They do not like the fact that they do not control your destiny.

If people cannot protect themselves, they'll have to rely on someone else, some other entity for protection. So goes the basic ability to be self sufficient and reliant. The protected "CLASS" is actually not being protected but intoxicated by the freebies the Liberals dish out and the promises the Race Baiters spew. A large amount of subsidies are paid out to ensure there are generational dependants. Can't protect themselves, can't feed themselves, can't get a good education, don't have quality health care. But the Liberals continue their mantra that they care. Maybe a current day Moses will come to their aide and again start with "Let my people go".

Sorry for my digression but it just chaffs my backside that the same people that say they are for a certain group of people are the same that want to have total control over those people. Unfortunately, most is Govt funded.
 
I don't know if I'll live long enough to read that article, but I suspect the answer to your question is, the elite who fund and push for legislation restricting gun use don't give a damn about anyone. It doesn't matter what color you are. They only know GREEN. They either can afford hired guns to protect them, or the government provides them for them. That's why I became an executive body guard. You want to what? Take my guns away? Well take them away from ALL the registered body guards then Mr Bigshot. Now who's going to protect YOU from the bad guys?
 
Glenn Beck had a good civil rights talk going on TV a year or so back, that discussed the free reign the KKK had. I'm not sure which state it was, but that state allowed African Americans to carry firearms in the mid 1960s, creating "The Deacons For Defense." At that point there was a decrease in attacks and murders by the KKK, because now they were at risk of being killed. It's no fun when they shoot back, 'eh ?!?! :sarcastic:

Througout history, those in power have sought to retain their power by taking away people's ability to fight, even on our side of the Atlantic. The Battle at Concord was fought to prevent the British troops from seizing a local gunpowder magazine. In colonial Williamsburg, the powder magazine is right across from the court house in the center of town, which was the first place the British troops occupied when revolution talk was spreading. To the same extent, "May Issue" states tend to have the mindset that you don't need a weapon to defend yourself, hence that weak assumption that someone else in authority will protect you. New Jersey reeks of this. This tends to be the mindset of most big cities...the places where self-protection is needed the most. I've said this in another thread, but I think the only dissenting state congressmen on the recent Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation were from Philadelphia. Practically everyone else, R's and D's alike, saw the need to improve the law.

It's such a shame that Switzerland's low crime rate seems to be the best kept secret of self defense!
Shame on the State-run media!
 
Clayton Cramer wrote an excellent monograph in 1993 entitled "The Racist Roots of Gun Control." It's an excellent, indepth, and well-researched and annotated article on the subject. Link Removed Link Removed

Link Removed is the same article with an interesting foreword by a black man pointing out why groups like the NAACP (in 2003) don't want to discuss the racist origins of gun control laws.

Supreme Court affirms racist origins of Gun Control is an article on how McDonald v DC exposed the racist origins of DC's gun laws.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07290bsacCongressofRacialEquality.pdf is a brief from Roy Innis and the Congress of Racial Equality in the DC v Heller case regarding the racist origins of gun laws.

The Disarming of Black America by Richard Poe is also a good read with modern, current day laws included.

I thought Roy Innis had authored a paper in the late nineties but can't find it. My Google-fu must be weak tonight.
 
Clayton Cramer wrote an excellent monograph in 1993 entitled "The Racist Roots of Gun Control." It's an excellent, indepth, and well-researched and annotated article on the subject. Link Removed Link Removed

Link Removed is the same article with an interesting foreword by a black man pointing out why groups like the NAACP (in 2003) don't want to discuss the racist origins of gun control laws.

Supreme Court affirms racist origins of Gun Control is an article on how McDonald v DC exposed the racist origins of DC's gun laws.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07290bsacCongressofRacialEquality.pdf is a brief from Roy Innis and the Congress of Racial Equality in the DC v Heller case regarding the racist origins of gun laws.

The Disarming of Black America by Richard Poe is also a good read with modern, current day laws included.

I thought Roy Innis had authored a paper in the late nineties but can't find it. My Google-fu must be weak tonight.

Thats quite alright, thanks for the extra reading material. I wonder how many gun control activists would be jumping on the band wagon if this was a more common place discussion.
 
Copyright 1993 Clayton E. Cramer All Rights Reserved. Electronic redistribution is permitted as long as no alterations are made to the text and this notice appears at the beginning. Print reproduction or for profit use is not authorized without permission from the author.




"Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has.

One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today.

In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that "they" were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government.

In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery."
 
"In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense.

Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race."


These two paragraphs, I thought, made some very good points.

Copyright 1993 Clayton E. Cramer All Rights Reserved. Electronic redistribution is permitted as long as no alterations are made to the text and this notice appears at the beginning. Print reproduction or for profit use is not authorized without permission from the author.
 
Why do you so avidly support an ideal that is based entirely in the subjugation of another race or economic class?
Those who push gun control now do not want anyone to have guns; it is no longer a racial, or even class, issue. The origins of gun control are inconvenient facts that would impede the leftist gun control agenda. Their only choices are supression or denial of facts - revisionist history. Revisionist history is worthy of its own thread.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top