© Josh Sager – September 2013
The gun-murder epidemic in the United States has provoked a great deal of discussion about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. On one side of this argument, there is the vast majority who want increased gun control, while, on the other, there is a small, but powerful and vocal, minority of gun extremists.
In the recent fights over gun control and ownership, we have seen many gun-enthusiasts claim that guns are just tools and that the simple act of owning a gun is not threatening in the slightest—in fact, these people claim that virtually everybody should be armed and trained to use guns from an early age. Despite these claims, it is evident to anybody who cares to look that not everybody in the United States is treated equally in regard to gun ownership.
Many assume that the issues surrounding gun control are race-blind, as everybody has access to the same weapons (weapons dealers rarely see any color but green), but these people would be incorrect. Our society’s perception of gun owners who are exercising their “2nd Amendment rights” is often linked to the color of their skin—in this, Americans’ gun rights are extremely different depending upon who is carrying the weapon.
Pro-White Gun Bias
For the most part, white Americans have a level of privilege when carrying their weapons which is simply not given to people of other races. Other white people (who are still the majority) are far less likely to perceive a heavily armed white “good ol boy” to be a threat than if they saw the same weapons being carried by somebody of black, Hispanic or middle eastern descent.
The ugly truth is, the 2nd Amendment may be idolized by many Americans, but a significant portion of these people see it as the exclusive domain of WHITE Americans—if it is a brown hand holding the gun that they see as an absolute right, then they immediately think of terrorists, drug gangs, and “thugs.”
For example: When gatherings of white gun enthusiasts congregate around a business in the south (ex. in Texas), they are usually given the benefit of the doubt and not treated as potential criminal threats. Contrasting this, if a group of black youths wearing baggy clothes or a group of Muslim men wearing headscarves were to hold the same weapons in the same place, it is highly likely that the locals would soil themselves, call the police or feds, and hide in the closet clutching their assault rifles until “help” arrives.
This pro-white bias in regard to gun-ownership is both unfair and highly ironic. It is unfair because, if people claim that gun ownership is a constitutional right, then it would stand to reason that race and dress should be irrelevant to the exercise of that right. It is ironic, simply because a vast majority of random mass-shooters are young, isolated, white men and a vast majority of white victims are killed by white killers (86% in fact).
Racial biases in the perception of gun ownership are not just an abstract societal phenomenon, as they can have very extreme real-life consequences. Studies have shown that Americans who see people as armed threats are more likely to shoot at them if they are not white, and are much faster to make fatal decisions. This perception of armed minorities as threats can lead to their deaths at the hands of paranoid white people who, ironically enough, often support gun ownership.
Unfortunately, this type of bias extends to police officers when they are performing their duties (ex. the killing of Amadou Diallo by the NYPD). In much the same way that African Americans have been stopped for driving while black,” racial minorities have a much harder time “exercising their 2nd Amendment rights” than white people—they are more likely to be stopped, or even killed during the stop.
Race, Children and Guns
This racial bias is not only present in the perception of gun carrying, but also in the youth aspect of gun culture. In some areas of the country, learning to shoot is a rite of passage that many kids goes through, from ages as young a five—in fact, there is even a rifle company called Crickett Firearms which makes rifles that are specifically designed for young children. The ownership and use of weapons by children may be disturbing to many not from that culture (myself included) but, throughout much of the country, the picture below is simply a funny family snapshot for the album (I mean, look at how big that machine pistol, shotgun and assault rifle look in the hands of those kids—isn’t it cute?).
Young white kids who are being trained to use guns are seen as simply American kids learning about their 2nd Amendment rights, while kids of other races are often seen as prospective threats being indoctrinated and trained to commit violence.
For example, here is a picture of another minor holding a powerful weapon:
This picture of an African American child holding a gun was found on a social media page by the Los Angelas Police Department. In response to this photo, there was outrage at gang members indoctrinating their children and exposing them to weapons at such an early age.
Bill Scott, an LAPD Commander, made the following comment after seeing this picture, as well as other such pictures from the same raid: “It’s a culture of violence; When you grow up in a culture like that, violence becomes secondary. It becomes second nature. And that’s the cycle we’re trying to disrupt.”
Personally, I find this picture intensely disturbing, but no more so than the one of the white children. In both pictures, children are given access to guns at far too young an age (not that there is a proper age to use an assualt rifle) in a way which glorifies the possession and use of firearms.
I have no doubt that many gun enthusiasts who see these two pictures will classify the white children as cute and harmless, while they will see the black child with a gun as a young “thug” who may one day be a threat—it is this disparity which illustrates the racial privilidge available to white gun owners.
Here is another photo of children with guns:
While this photo is of Palestinian youths, not Americans, I would ask people to imagine that a few American Muslims were photographed havin their children hold their guns this way.
Obviously, many white Americans would make snap-judgments, classifying these middle-eastern kids with guns to be the victims of Islamic extremist indoctrination and potential domestic terrorists—this judgment is not based upon the weapons, but upon the fact that the people holding them are not white. It is likely that the parent of these kids would receive a visit from Homeland Security and that Fox News would run a continuous loop of the pictures for weeks.
If we are to believe that gun ownership is a constitutional right, then we cannot say that white people are the only people who are freely able to exercise that right without terrifying their fellow Americans and opening themselves up to danger—such a disparity creates two-tiers of the law and elevates white Americans above all others.
The solution here is not to default to the lowest common denominator (by lowering the reaction of the American public to armed individual to that which is currently enjoyed by white people), but to stop assuming that white people with guns are somehow less dangerous. It is rational to assume that somebody who is carrying non-hunting weapons while not wearing a uniform could be a threat, and the fact that somebody is white should be immaterial. Anybody who is insecure or ill-intentioned enough to constantly feel the need to carry around weapons—whether they are black, white, or even green—should be regarded as equally suspect.
By attaching a social stigma to carrying weapons in public, we can disincentivize people of every race from idolizing weapons; this could help turn the tide against the NRA’s blockage of gun reforms and would do a great deal to reduce accidental gun deaths.
Unfortunately, this situation exists at the nexus of the intensely controversial issue of the American gun obsession and the pervasive issue of white privilege. As such, it is very difficult to combat, but we must not give up if we wish to have any hope of a truly equal society that does not live in constant fear of the next shooting.
“The gun-murder epidemic in the United States …”
Fact: Homicide rates in the U.S. are approaching historic LOWS not seen since the 1960s.
According to the FBI, in 2011 (the latest year for which stats are available) there were 8,583 gun murders in the U.S. Sixty-eight percent of all homicide victims were killed by guns. Yes, the rate is declining, as is crime generally in this country. However, we still have twenty times as many gun deaths as the average for the developed countries. 8,583 gun murders is almost twice the number of American soldiers who died in Iraq. I think that’s a problem.
You are absolutely correct–crime is falling (likely due to EPA regulations on leaded gas reducing aerosolized lead and the accompanying frontal lobe damage), but gun murder is still incredibly high in the USA.
As to the Iraq comparison, I actually wrote an article comparing war and gun deaths in the USA: https://theprogressivecynic.com/2013/09/20/guns_and_war_deaths/
How many “unarmed” Iraqi citizens have been killed. Hundred’s of thousands. Many in ethnic based murders. Do you believe that would have happened if they were armed.
” on the other, there is a small, but powerful and vocal, minority of gun extremists.”
Many polls have shown that a majority of Americans don’t actually favor more gun control laws.
Is that the same Gallup who predicted a Romney landslide?
Donnadara, which Gallup poll do you refer to? I don’t recall ever hearing at any time during the past election that Romney was predicted to win in a “landslide”. Personally, I think the Republicans could have easily won if they had just been a little more selective with their candidate. Anyway, I found this video that might interest you.
Right. When asked a general question like “Do you favor more strict gun control laws,” 49 percent said yes, as opposed to the combined 37% (leave as is) plus 13% (less strict), leaving a one-percent deficit for the “more strict” advocates. However, on closer examination, you’ll note that when the question is specific, — universal background checks, assault weapons ban, limits on magazine size, — a solid majority favors each measure for stricter controls. Also, on the background checks bill that failed in the Senate after the slaughter in Newtown, 65% said it should have passed, vs. 29% who said it shouldn’t.
Gun control advocates spew their alleged statistics, Second Amendment supporters present ours. However, the FACTS are that gun control was defeated in Washington on April 17th, two Colorado state senators were recalled on September 10th and we are only just getting warmed up. Guns and gun owners are here to stay, you’ll just have to accept it or move to China.
It’s a good thing we live in a Constitutional Republic so that the majority can’t have their way. The constitution provides for an individual rights so that no majority can take them away. If they majority “always” got their way, then we would live in a socialist society. Everyone would receive the same wage for doing different jobs. Is that really what you want, the majority to rule?
Bluzette. In case you forgot, this also happened.
Politicians want to keep their jobs. Their job is to serve the will of the people. In order to keep their jobs, they need the majority of the votes. If they are intelligent, they will listen to the majority of the voters. Gun control was defeated because 2nd Amendment supporters are the majority. The NRA is powerful because of the dues and donations it receives from its members, every day common people. The firearms industry is powerful because of the profits it receives from sales to citizens (with the exception of police and military contracts). It’s time for gun control advocates to overcome their fear and prejudice, listen to their common sense and rethink which side they want to be on.
do not listen to lwk2431 says…he’s an ignorant NRA troll too stupid to know that it’s cowardly cancer like him who will be responsible for the TYRANNICAL government he fears so much…IGNORANCE is a choice and lwk2431 made his choice to cling to his cowardly guns while other intelligent americans were warning all about the creation of DRONES that render guns USELESS. Long story short, it is always the beautiful children who suffer the most from the ignorance, hypocrisy and cowardice of their parents and lwk2431 is the perfect example this. He cannot comprehend that the true cancer of AMERICA are people like him and is why our government CREATED drones – to protect themselves from cowards like lwk2431 and jihadist muslim bent on destroying america like lwk2431
“Many assume that the issues surrounding gun control are race-blind…”
Actually, many supporters of the 2nd Amendment are fully aware that a lot of gun control legislation has been motivated by blatant racism.
The Racist Roots of Gun Control
No Guns For Negroes
“there is even a rifle company called Crickett Firearms which makes rifles that are specifically designed for young children.”
Yes, and children raised with strong indoctrination for safety in using these guns are a lot safer in adulthood around guns than kids from a non-gun-owning household.
The New York Times reports today that the number of children accidentally killed by firearms in their homes is vastly underreported, and would be easily preventable, were it not for the NRA blocking safety legislation in the states.
Bluzette (if that is your real name, mine actually is Joe), please explain exactly how can an accidental shooting of a child be underreported. Especially with the liberal media that just loves reporting on such incidents. Exactly what “safety legislation” did the NRA block that would have prevented accidental shootings of children in their homes? Providing of course that the children were not living with convicted felons, illegal aliens or anyone else who was not legally allowed to posses the firearm. The NRA has operated the Eddie Eagle program for over 20 years to help educate children to be safe when it comes to firearms.
As long as Michael Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City, we should probably be a little more skeptical of what is printed in the New York Times.
“While this photo is of Palestinian youths, not Americans, I would ask people to imagine that a few American Muslims were photographed havin their children hold their guns this way.”
The picture I found a lot more disturbing was young Palestinian children given toy suicide bomb vests by their parents and parading around in their kindergarten wearing them.
“If we are to believe that gun ownership is a constitutional right, then we cannot say that white people are the only people who are freely able to exercise that right …”
I, and many other 2nd Amendment supporters I know, fully support the right of all Americans who don’t have a felony conviction or history of dangerous mental illness to own a firearm, and to get a concealed carry permit to carry a loaded handgun in public (as I do).
Wow! I thought I was going to have to post something for this one but it looks like lwk2431has this one covered. I’ll just put this video out there.
I forgot about this special news report. It shows Canadian children and their families enjoying recreational shooting. It also mentions something that gun control advocates don’t realize. Legal gun owners in the US and Canada are required to pass background checks. In Canada, gun owners names are checked DAILY via computer by the RCMP. ANYONE can be a gun control advocate including convicted felons. Maybe police should start performing random checks at gun control rallies.
I’d like to see references for some of the comments? I can find one for this: criminals will avoid a house with a DOG! not one with a “gun owner.” And, statistics are very dismal for gun owners… in terms of the number of times that a family member dies versus the number of times an intruder dies. suicide, accident, domestic violence…. hey, I guess that 8 children dying by guns every day in America is an acceptable number?!?
LikeLiked by 1 person
” statistics are very dismal for gun owners… in terms of the number of times that a family member dies versus the number of times an intruder dies.”
The number of times a gun owner shoots and kills an intruder is not an accurate measure of how often guns are used in self defense. The fact is that in almost every case the gun owner displays a firearms and the crook/intruder runs away.
According to some of the most extensive research on defensive gun usage, Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found that Americans use firearms upwards of 2.5 million times a year and up to 400,000 lives are saved.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern) Guns and Violence Symposium, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995: 150.
ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN
suicide, accident, ….”
Approximately 2/3s of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. People who commit suicide really intend to. It is not a “plea for help.”
The U.K. has largely banned guns yet it has a suicide rate nearly identical to the U.S. Also crime and violence and even gun crimes have gone up sharply in the U.K. since banning guns.
I am going to assume you meant to type “Kidney” instead of “Kidnee”. You do know you spelled it wrong don’t you? Anyway, criminals avoid a house with a dog because from outside, they can SEE or HEAR the dog. They don’t always know if the home owner is armed. Although, I can see where owning a dog in addition to a gun would increase the occupants safety. Please reveal the source of your dismal statistics. Here is a video for you too.
I would like to see where you are getting your dismal statistics. According to the National Safety Council, the top 5 causes of accidental death every year in the United States and approximate death tolls are as follows. Choking (2,500), fires (2,700), falls (25,000), poisoning (39,000) and traffic accidents (42,000), Accidental shooting deaths average only 600. It might interest you to know that in 2012, 38 Americans were killed be dogs with pit bulls being involved in 23 incidents. According to the CDC, the leading cause of death in the US is heart disease with 598,607 deaths in 2009 alone. Accidental deaths are at number 5 and murder isn’t even in the top 10. Kidney disease is number 8 by the way. If 8 children die every day in the US due to gun shots then that would add up to 2,920 children every year. Please tell me where you are finding that number.
I tend to use either DOJ or FBI violent murder reports while looking at gun murder or CDC fatality studies while looking at accidental gun murders.
In regard to the statistics that you are looking at, it is entirely possible that they are under-reporting, as described in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=1&
How many children and their parents were murdered with illegal guns sent to drug dealers in Mexico? the number is in the hundreds and the killing continues. Have you smelly hippies asked that question?
When do you plan on holding the Great Leader and his crook DOJ Heinrich Holder accountable?
My gun permit is the US constitution.
…only if you are a member of a well-regulated militia.
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.
I translate the 2A as I have a right to form a militia and I also have the right to keep and bear arms.
“…only if you are a member of a well-regulated militia.”
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
The language of the 2nd Amendment does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia. Here in fact is what the 2nd Amendment means in modern language for those who have not read the Federalist Papers:
“A heavily armed and well trained populace led by trusted state officers being necessary to defend a free state against the armed forces of a tyrannical Federal government, the right of the people to keep and bear military grade firearms shall not be infringed.”
A Modern 2nd Amendment
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state” <- this is the preparatory statement, it explains why the right to bear arms is necessary (maintaining a free state) but it puts no restrictions on that right and gives no regulatory power to the government, because it doesn't say "you must be in a militia to bear arms" it just says a militia is necessary if you want to maintain freedom. This was addressed in the DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision. "Well regulated" didn't refer to government control back when this was written by the way, but rather it meant "well practiced and in properly functioning condition"….."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" <—this acknowledges our inherent right to bear weapons to be able to project lethal force in the name of our self defense. Obviously this right has limits based on the rights of others, but realize that while "feeling safe" isn't a right (I've met people who argue that carrying a weapon infringes on their "right" to feel safe) Actually being marginally safer by carrying and owning a weapon is a right. You can't own a nuke because you can't safely house and store it, it would create an unreasonable danger to those around you and potentially infringe on their right to life. You're also limited in the arms you own based on what you can afford. I can legally buy a machine gun, but I simply don't have the money for it.
I hope this has helped you to better understand your 2nd amendment rights. Good day and God bless.
For gun-lovers citing the 2008 Heller decision, I would point out that the Supreme Court has been wrong. The Taney court was wrong on the Dred Scott decision. The Rehnquist court was wrong on Bush v. Gore. The corrupt, compromised and partisan Roberts court was wrong on Citizens United, and on Heller. You can’t just throw out a Constitutional clause, or pretend it has nothing to do with the sense of the Amendment.
if gun ownership is a white privilege, then why is more than 80 percent of violent gun crime committed by non-whites?
I suggest that you look up the definitions of the terms white privilege and irony, because your comment exhibits that you don’t know what either are.
“if gun ownership is a white privilege, then why is more than 80 percent of violent gun crime committed by non-whites?”
Because a lot of non-whites live in inner cities managed by Democrats for decades if not generations?
Come on now. You know people can buy guns at gun shows, through private sales and on the Internet without background checks. Take your nonsense elsewhere. And if my young adult black son was walking around in Starbucks and in retail stores with guns on display like some of these white gun nuts, he’d be dead.
“You know people can buy guns at gun shows, through private sales and on the Internet without background checks…”
Just an FYI. Licensed dealers at gun show have to run purchases through the FBI NICS check just like they would in their own store. There is no exemption for them at gun shows and the vast majority of sales at gun shows are through FFL dealers.
Also, gun sales via Internet sites are done through FFL dealers too. Here is how it works. Let’s say you win a bid on gunbroker.com. If you yourself are not an FFL dealer then the gun must be shipped to an FFL dealer near you in your state who will conduct the sale and do the FBI NICS check.
Come on now Donnadara. Show us ONE example of a law abiding black man who has been shot in a Starbucks or a retail store while open carrying a gun legally. Take YOUR nonsense elsewhere. To be honest, I personally have a concealed carry permit and would not open carry just because I don’t care to draw attention and I know that there would always be someone who would call 911. Open carry at gun rights support rallies is fine since it would be expected.
Yeah, the 90s are over. The waggling of so called “white privilege” is a tired old saw. As is this grand leap across some chasm of logic that things that are intrinsic to the fabric of this nation are unfair and disparate; the oppressed cannot adhere, somehow, to these tenets (including, but not limited to the 2nd Amendment), thus these things should be reexamined if not abolished.
I would suggest you bone up a little on your reading. You might start with Plato’s Republic, then move on to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and Descartes’ Discourse on Method. Then you might be ready for Jean Jacques Rousseau’s On Social Contract (which, by the way, much of what you are effusing on here, and ironically the Constitution itself is indirectly influenced by), and Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. A reading, and might I suggest, a rereading of each of these will coalesce a sort of more acute lens through which to see the truth in these contemporary issues, including, but not limited to gun control vis a vis some worn out notion of race. Identity politicking only goes so far as a cute little fad. Especially for a white guy.
In your first sentence, you deride my use of a concept from the 90s, yet you then try to suggest a reading list of books going back to the time of Plato–make up your mind.
That said, you clearly lack any independent ability to analyze this situation or form an opinion of your own, thus you are stuck simply giving me mocking book lists (by the way, I have read all of those books except Discipline and Punish) and generalized criticisms. If you feel up to it, perhaps you can reply with actual specifics as to how white people are not given extraordinary latitude in regard to gun ownership.
Yes, I am white, but that doesn’t blind me to the inherent biases in our current system. It isn’t race or “identity politicking” to point these biases out, merely an objective and fair assessment of the facts.
P.S. Given your comment, I am assuming that you were either a philosophy or English major–you may use an advanced vocabulary to make your points, but that is nothing more than a smokescreen over the fact that you have nothing of any real substance to say.
“In your first sentence, you deride my use of a concept from the 90s, yet you then try to suggest a reading list of books going back to the time of Plato–make up your mind.” – Disjunctive Fallacy. Rehashing 90s is in no way the same as invoking the essences of foundational texts. Bet a lot of your readers fell for that one.
Well, it seems that you haven’t comprehended what was contained in said books, hence your overwrought partyline screed (curious Freudian projection of you to make the statement: “you clearly lack any independent ability to analyze this situation or form an opinion of your own” don’t you think?).
I have read all of the above, and internalized them, which neutralizes the need to rehash questions in them. Which is, in effect, what you are doing on this issue, and in the body of work you have foisted on your blog here.
In grad school it was commonplace to encounter Identity Politicking as du jour “theory” – but in reality, these have all been done and said, and been put away long ago. “White Privilege”, if it does exist, is assuredly exemplified by white folks such as yourself who can comfortably fire salvos of race toward your very race. Sort of a trustafarian sans patchouli. More of the atavistic hip horn rim glasses of MSNBC hosts.
Again: you cover your intellectual inadequacy with an advanced vocabulary, saying nothing of any substance using many complex words–this tactic may work on some people, but not anybody who actually knows what they are talking about.
I eagerly await you actually addressing any point that I actually made, rather than pontificating upon your summer reading lists and using argumentum ad hominem.
Speaking of ad hominem, again projection.
The “issues” you bring up here are not really issues at all, which further reifies my point. I was giving you some constructive criticism – because kid, you aint got it. Keep trying to impune my intellect if that helps you (I’m sure that the people who are reading this thread can judge for themselves).
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are insisting that some notion of “white privilege” exists, when it really doesn’t. That was my point. I cited texts which you claimed to have read (dubious assertion, but hey, we’ll take your word for it) to illustrate that that notion, along with many notions held in stead by the partyliner statist democrat types is warmed over casserole.
Other commenters on here have pointed out your constitutional misunderstandings, but you have chosen to hone in on my comment. A constructive one. Obviously hit a nerve.
What more is there to say?
“I eagerly await you actually addressing any point that I actually made, …”
I won’t berate you with a required reading list. My question is fairly straightforward. Based on what philosophical and moral principles do you feel qualifed and empowered to dictate these regulations to supposedly free people?
You may say something to the effect that “If it just saves one life,” or “to protect kids,” or something along those lines.
But I challenge you to at least, perhaps in a temporary state of insanity, to examine the arguments of people who say that firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens may deter tyranny. I quoted this earlier to you:
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
Mao Tse Tung
Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938
If you go here on Wikipedia:
There you will read how under Communism millions died because they had no power to resist, for example under:
4.2.1 Land reform and the suppression of counterrevolutionaries
4.2.2 The Great Leap Forward
4.2.3 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
Now, if you can still justify putting Americans in danger of a government with all the guns, or at least, all the really good guns, explain how you prevent bad people in government from doing the same things?
Oh, you say, “It can’t happen in America!”
In the beginning of the 20th century Germany was considered one of the most civilized nations in the world. It was the homeland of some of the greatest minds in literature, science, music and philosophy, men like Goethe, Schweitzer, Beethoven, and others.
But WWI, a disastrous financial situation, and fear of Communists led to the takeover by the savage Nazi Party. Not a lot unlike America today, don’t you think, what with our enormous financial challenges and fear of terrorists?
I would just like to understand how you sweep those concerns under the rug, so to speak, and believe giving more and more power to government will ultimately make you safer? But then again, maybe you intend to be in that government and part of the elite who doesn’t have to worry? Is that it, by any chance?
if you look at the 3 white children there not aiming the fire arms at anything there holding them in a safe direction. the little black girl is aiming hers at what we don’t know but it looks threatening. the middle eastern children have men with black masks behind them also looking threatening.
and if i see anyone wearing baggy cloths with a gun in there waist band im going to assume they shouldent have one regardless of race. but if some ones wearing jeans and a t shirt with a holster on there hip. im going to assume they know what there doing and are allowed to have there fire arm
No offense, but you are simply grasping at straws. I simply picked a few pictures as an example, and there are plenty more where they came from that don’t conform to your argument (ex. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1357709/thumbs/o-BOY-SHOOTING-GUN-facebook.jpg ). If the middle white kid were to have a loaded gun and it were to fire, do you really assert that it would be safe? Beyond that, the little black girl and the three white girls aren’t exactly wearing threatening clothes, yet only the little black girl is seen as being indoctrinated.
Face it: racism still exists, we need to work on some serious social flaws in our country, and many white Americans perceive (potentially unconsciously) non-whites as threatening when armed in a way that they don’t see armed whites.
“Face it: racism still exists, …”
Racism does still exist, and is actually much worse today than in the 1950s – for blacks.
Black racism is the huge problem today. A new generation of whites have abandoned racism, but blacks hold onto their bitter racism like a valued heirloom.
So was your article about an existing racial bias in America or simply that whites are given undeserved latitude in unsafe handling, storage and use of firearms? If you simply wish to point out the racial bias in the US you could have pointed out that a black man is more likely to safely pass through a white neighborhood than a white individual can pass through a predominantly black neighborhood. You could have used a scary picture of Oakland, Detroit or Compton with a photo of a skinny suburban white kid trying to find his way home to the suburbs where his privilege, class and a tidy gated community will protect him. , Trying to blend your myopic view of gun control with unrelated socioeconomic (not racial) lines is as you said…is “simply grasping at straws”. Parroting lines and statistics from sites that are vehement gun control supporters shows that you are the one that….”….clearly lack(s) any independent ability to analyze this situation or form an opinion of your own..”
You did not have to make an attempt to take what is a simple social truth and spin it into some form of scholarly dribble. You could have summed up your entire stool sample article by pointing out that as Americans we do make assumptions based on a persons attire, skin color, perceived affiliation with gangs etc. combined with possession of weapons, whether they are firearms, tire irons, a malt liquor bottle or a burning cross. Some of those assumptions are correct. Many of them are smart assumptions. Sometimes they are simply judging a book by its cover and show how shallow we are. Not quite as shallow as I think your article is…but close. Now head down to Starbucks and join up with all of the privileged who can afford $4 a cup coffee and exclaim how afraid you are at the well dressed white folks walking by on their way to Dunkin’ Donuts to open carry. And one last correction, the Heller decision made clear that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right and not in any way restricted to being a member of a well regulated militia. That false statement shows your lack of understanding of the Constitution. You should look into doing comics instead of taking a swing and a miss at academia.
You sir, are a moron.
Racial Disparities in Incarceration
•African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
•African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
•Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
•According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today’s prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
•One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
•1 in 100 African American women are in prison
•Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).
• Inner city crime prompted by social and economic isolation
• Crime/drug arrest rates: African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession
• “Get tough on crime” and “war on drugs” policies
• Mandatory minimum sentencing, especially disparities in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine possession
• In 2002, blacks constituted more than 80% of the people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite that fact that more than 2/3 of crack cocaine users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic
• “Three Strikes”/habitual offender policies
• Zero Tolerance policies as a result of perceived problems of school violence; adverse affect on black children.
• 35% of black children grades 7-12 have been suspended or expelled at some point in their school careers compared to 20% of Hispanics and 15% of whites
Uhhhh that’s why they are perceived dangerous!
I won’t say much, other than point out one of the most respected pro-carry advocates on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrColionNoir.
Reblogged this on The Progressive Democrat.
So, I do have one more thing to add. I reread the article, and it appears that what the author is saying, boiled down, is this: “There is racist attitude toward minorities who carry guns that does not exist among the white majority. Such a racist attitude is bad. To combat racism, we should not allow anyone to carry guns.” So rather than attacking the gun control issue head-on, that issue is side-stepped in an effort to attack the social stigma issue.
This is an interesting approach, but it’s flawed. Allow me to replace “carrying weapons in public” in your conclusion with the generic variable “X.” Allow X to be anything for which there is a racist attitude. For example, “driving,” which is conceded in the article (“In much the same way that African Americans have been stopped for driving while black.”)
So, let’s replace the gun-carrying element in the argument above with “driving:” “There is a racist attitude toward minorities who drive that does not exist among the white majority. Such a racist attitude is bad. To combat racism, we should not allow anyone to drive.”
To me, going the round-about way of addressing racism is not effective. It’s attacking the symptoms without attacking the problem. If you’re not okay with anyone carrying guns, fine, but attack that issue. It’s fallacious to say “By solving the gun-carrying issue, we kill two birds with one stone, because we also combat racism.” These are two very distinct issues that need to be addressed in two very distinct ways.
You are correct on the first two points, but wrong on the third (I don’t support banning guns, but an increase in gun control laws).
I think that the proper reaction to people who are insecure enough to constantly carry in our society to be caution–this should exist regardless of race. We merely need to stop being so blase about white people carrying guns and start attaching a social stigma to gun extremism and giving children access to guns.
P.S. Here is a short summery of my ideal gun-control regulatory regime:
Nobody with a felony record, severe mental illness, pending criminal charges, or place on the terrorist watch list is allowed to buy or carry guns within the United States. In addition to these restrictions, nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to own a gun and nobody under the age of 15 should be allowed to operate a gun (even with parental consent/supervision).
No guns are to be allowed in the following locations: Religious institutions, schools, government buildings, national parks, places where alcohol is sold/consumed, sports stadiums, large public gatherings, political rallies/voting location, or any areas which have large numbers of children (zoos, amusement parks, playgrounds, etc.).
Before buying a gun, an individual must pass a psychiatric evaluation (with federal standards), and be certified competent in the safe handling of a firearm (identical to a driving test for the right to drive a car). The results of these tests will be confidential and not used in any capacity other than determining whether an individual has the ability to safely handle a firearm.
The only guns which are legal for civilians within the United States are bolt-action rifles, scatter-guns (shotguns/bird-rifles), and non-automatic pistols (revolver or semi-automatic). Any individual seeking another type of gun may attempt to buy one, but only after submitting a written statement to the federal government, describing the exact purpose and need for such a firearm (ex. private security personnel may require assault weapons for overseas government contracts).
All legally sold guns must have their barrel striations and firing pin imprints logged and registered to the government; any intentional alterations to these components should be a felony and result in an immediate loss of the right to carry a firearm.
Straw-purchasing and the personal sale of firearms without disclosure to the government should be a felony. If a gun is stolen, the legal owner has 72 hours from the discovery of the theft to report it to the police, or they will lose their right to own a firearm for a minimum of a year and be subject to a fine.
All ammunition sales should require identification and should be immediately reported to the government. In addition to this reporting, there should be caps on ammunition sales, both on the number of bullets which can be bought in a single instance and on the number of bullets which can be bought per year; gun ranges and professional shooters are exempt to these limits, but only after receiving a federal waiver.
No extended magazines or specialty ammunition are to be allowed for civilian use (tracer, explosive, sabot, etc.); a waiver can be obtained for this restriction, but only after a written application is submitted to the government, and the individual has been certified in the safe handling of the ammunition (ex. if a movie crew wants to use tracer rounds for a scene).
Without receiving a federal waiver, no individual may own more than three of a single category of firearm (sidearm, rifle, or scatter-gun), putting a cap of nine guns for each individual. If an individual wishes to obtain more than three of a single category of gun (hunters, collectors, etc.), they must be evaluated and approved by the federal government.
When storing a firearm, it must have a trigger-lock (fingerprint based, if possible) or be stored in a secure location (locking drawer, lockbox, safe, etc.). Any violation of this regulation which is discovered by authorities will result in a fine or loss of the right to own a gun for a period of time.
In order to ensure that there is no race to the bottom for gun control, these regulations should be based in the federal government. Any state which wished to further restrict gun rights should have the right to do so, but the above regulations should create the federal baseline for American gun laws.
“P.S. Here is a short summery of my ideal gun-control regulatory regime:”
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
Mao Tse Tung
Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938
You think a lot alike.
“I think that the proper reaction to people who are insecure enough to constantly carry in our society …”
Saw this somewhere:
The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
In fact people with concealed carry licenses in the U.S. are some of the most law abiding of all citizens, and yes, we need more black people allowed to carry concealed. Unfortunately a lot of them live in inner cities controlled by Democrats, often for generations, where that has been illegal.
People with concealed carry licenses sometimes get arrested for firearms violations, but at a rate very slightly lower than sworn police officers arrested for firearms violations (which happens, but not very often).
As to being “insecure,” maybe that is just an unintended admission of your own psychological state, or how you would feel carrying a gun. Please don’t project your own inadequacies on the rest of us.
Yes, because using background checks to stop insane people and terrorists from getting guns and banning machine guns to prevent the USA from looking like the Gaza Strip is Maoist.
Lest you forget, it is YOU who says that political power comes from owning weapons (preventing an overreaching government) and that guns must be held to prevent your ideology (party) from being repressed–replace communism in the quote with anarcho-libertarianism or fascism, and you have the modern right wing’s opinion on gun verbatim.
“…because using background checks to stop insane people and terrorists from getting guns and banning machine guns to prevent the USA from looking like the Gaza Strip is Maoist.”
You may not know this:
1. AR-15 are not machine guns (fully automatic). They are semi-automatic rifles that look like real assault rifles (the kind my son in the Marine Corps uses).
2. Fully automatic machine guns have been tightly regulated and taxed in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
“Lest you forget, it is YOU who says that political power comes from owning weapons …”
Yes, the Founders fully understood the point that Mao made (long before he made it).
That is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment to keep physical power in the form of guns in the hands of the people. They thought that was a lot better than the government having all the guns, otherwise known as a “police state,” what you actually advocate. Despite your disclaimers, that is essentially what you are calling for. Your “reasonable” checks would soon become so that hardly anyone could qualify.
Supposedly you could get a concealed carry permit in Los Angeles decades ago (long before the “shall issue” concealed carry movement that has been hugely successful since it started in Florida in the1980s). But it required the chief police officer to “approve” the request. If you were a Hollywood start or well connected you could get one. Otherwise forget it.
That is pretty much what your ideas would lead to. Most people could not jump through all the hoops and would be prevented from exercising their right to self defense.
As to gun control and background checks I did actually write an article on a version I think gun owners could support.
Universal Background Checks
“Nobody with a felony record, severe mental illness, pending criminal charges, or place on the terrorist watch list is allowed to buy or carry guns within the United States.”
With possible exception of terrorists, felons and people who have been committed to a mental institution are not allowed to buy or possess firearms. There are undoubtedly issues with enforcement, and in fact the current Obama administration has greatly reduced prosecution of people caught lying on form 4473s (fill out to buy a firearm from an FFL dealer).
“In addition to these restrictions, nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to own a gun and nobody under the age of 15 should be allowed to operate a gun (even with parental consent/supervision).”
In other words, you want to be the “parent.” As a fact kids younger than 15 frequently participate safety in marksman programs using .22 target rifles. My sons both were involved in this before they were 15. Kids, under proper supervision, are perfectly safe in these programs. The younger you install safety practices the better.
“No guns are to be allowed in the following locations: Religious institutions, schools, government buildings, national parks, places where alcohol is sold/consumed, sports stadiums, large public gatherings, political rallies/voting location, or any areas which have large numbers of children (zoos, amusement parks, playgrounds, etc.).”
In other words, make it a nightmare to figure out where you can legally carry and reduce that to the smallest possible area you can.
In Texas I can legally carry a concealed handgun into a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as it makes less than 51% of its revenue from alcohol. No matter, if I drink one drop of alcohol while in that restaurant as a concealed carry holder, I could put my license i jeopardy, and potentially call into question any self defense shooting that occured later under the influence of alcohol.
As to religious institutions, in Texas they must post a 30.06 sign that meets statute requirements if they want prevent people from legally carrying in their institution. I normally carry in church as my church is sensible enough to not post a 30.06 sign.
People have been murdered in churches by deranged killers in the past.
You said, “large public gatherings,” probably meaning more than 3 people standing around together. 🙂
“Before buying a gun, an individual must pass a psychiatric evaluation (with federal standards), …”
And probably enforced by the IRS which will of course hold up applications by suspected Tea Party members.
“The only guns which are legal for civilians within the United States are bolt-action rifles, scatter-guns (shotguns/bird-rifles), and non-automatic pistols (revolver or semi-automatic).”
You wrote above “non-automatic pistols (revolver or semi-automatic)” which is probably a pretty good idea you are technically clueless. Let’s try to educate you:
1. Automatic – means fully automatic, a machine gun. You pull the trigger and as long as you hold it down the gun keeps firing until the magazine is empty. One exception is a version of the M16 that only has “burst” fire when it fires 3 shots automatically then stops until you release and pull the trigger again.
All fully automatic weapons, including the version of the M16 mentioned above, are HIGHLY regulated by the BATFE and fully registered. Also, they appear in crime statistics just about 0 times. I think a police officer some years ago was arrested for some offense involving a registered machine gun, but think that may be the only as long as I can remember (which isq quite a while).
2. Pistol is usually used to refer to a semi-automatic handgun (vs. a revolver or single shot). With the possible exception of some handguns that are capable of fully automatic fire (and registered with BATFE), all pistols are semi-automatic. Period.
The vast majority of handguns used by police and civilians today are semi-automatic pistols. If you call to ban semi-automatic pistols you are pretty much calling to ban handguns. Yes, revolvers exist, but are a tiny fraction of modern production and many companies would probably go under if their sales of semi-automatic pistols was banned in the U.S.
“Any individual seeking another type of gun may attempt to buy one, but only after submitting a written statement to the federal government…)”
In other words turn a Constitutionally guaranteed right into something you have to explain and justify to the government. That would be like forcing you to get permission from the government to write this blog, to express your speech freely, except only if the government approves.
“All legally sold guns must have their barrel striations and firing pin imprints logged and registered to the government; any intentional alterations to these components should be a felony and result in an immediate loss of the right to carry a firearm.”
In other words, increase to cost of owning a firearm as much as possible.
“Straw-purchasing and the personal sale of firearms without disclosure to the government should be a felony.”
It is a felony right now, a Federal crime. Of course that didn’t prevent the government from encouraging dealers along the Mexican border to sell thousands of guns in straw purchases that ended up killing thousands of people in Mexico. Maybe you have heard of the “Fast And Furious” scandal?
“Without receiving a federal waiver, no individual may own more than three of a single category of firearm (sidearm, rifle, or scatter-gun),”
While you are at it, maybe you should enact a prohibition that prevents people from receiving arm and hand transplants so they can have 4,5, or maybe even 6 arms and hands so they can shoot multiple guns at the same time. Of course then we need additional eye implants to aim all those guns at once, and maybe even additional brain implants to control the whole thing.
There is no criminal, or psychopath that can shoot more than one gun at a time accurately. Period.
You clearly don’t know a lot, really, about guns (obvious from your confusion about semi-automatic). But you think that somehow you are qualified to define detailed rules to control others.
You probably missed one detail that they have in the U.K. There if you want to obtain a firearm (one of the few that are still legal, after much paperwork, etc.) you have to provide your justification. Self defense is not a recognized justification in the U.K. anymore.
That was probably an oversight on your part.
The Washington Snipers were both black. The recent Washington shooting was by a black. You can see many recent College mass shootings and other shootings that were by Asian.With white’s 75% of the population they should be 75% of all crimes but as an example in New York 98% of all violent crimes are committed by non-whites.
According to FBI stats for 2011 for homicides where the race of the offender was known it was black 52.4% of the time, and that despite blacks being less than 14% of the population. Their victims were most often black too, although there has been an upsurge of black-on-white violent crime lately.
If you look at the same FBI stats blacks in some categories are often very much over-represented. Of course this is largely the result of the unintended consequences of disastrous social polices primarily promoted by Democrats since the 1960s that have largely destroyed the black family in inner cities.
Pingback: The 2nd Amendment apparently only favors whites... | Holes in the FoamHoles in the Foam
Mr. Sager, it would appear that you have finally bitten off a little more than you can chew with this article. I just hope you learn something from this experience.
How so? I stand by every fact and argument used in this article which has had nearly 4,000 individual people view it in the last 48 hrs, as well as over 500 social media shares and a dozen re-blogs. In short, I got my message out to a lot of people and a few nuts commenting upon my arguments are not going to mess up my day–honestly, you guys kinda amuse me and your blatant ignorance/illogicality just reinforce my belief that my side will win in the end.
“…had nearly 4,000 individual people view it in the last 48 hrs, as well as over 500 social media shares and a dozen re-blogs…”
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you.
I was raised Jewish and you are an asshole. Nine times out of ten, Nazi comparisons are the last refuge of the intellectually disabled and this is not that unusual tenth case.
Equating the desire to see fewer Sandy Hooks and Auroras with Nazism is just ridiculous and you have officially lost any credibility on this issue.
With this, I am done with you and am marking all future comments by you as spam. Please go back to your own blog and talk to yourself while the rest of us have discussions over actual facts.
Pingback: The Progressive Cynic on Bias, Perception, and Guns | The Penn Ave Post
Pingback: Blogging Blue | The Progressive Cynic on Bias, Perception, and Guns
(RESPONDING TO THIS BEING POSTED ON FACEBOOK:
A friend posted this with the caption, “Read at least until you’ve finished the part titled “Race, Children and Guns”.
This was my response:
I know you suggested I read to a certain point but I had to stop after the first horrible paragraph. The bile in my throat came not from being an advocate of the right to bear arms, but of having been a student of journalistic integrity. The first paragraph biasedly butchers fact beyond recognition in that even the Obama administration admits that further gun control lacks public support so far. Never would have guessed it based on this.
I’ll read on an respond more once I get a necessary shot or two down my gullet.
I WENT ON TO RESOND AFTERWARDS:
I found the entire piece almost… ALMOST as hard to swallow as that first painful paragraph.
It is rare to see a handgun carry permit holder of any race exercising the Tennessee provisional right to open carry. On the rare occasions I do see them they either tend to have that good ole boy look… decked in camo, or they are buttoned down in polo and khakis. My apprehension around either is nil. I assume the guy in camo knows a good bit about guns, to include gun safety. I assume the guy in the polo did his due diligence to be able to legally carry. Stereotyping I know… but it tends to be proven. My apprehension, or lack thereof is in no way affected by the color of the carrier’s skin. (Though it is rare to see non-Caucasian open carriers.)
What would impact my comfort level would be seeing an open carry permit holder dressed in typical “street”, “hip-hop”, “afro-centric” attire… regardless of the color of their skin. This is a hypocrisy and I will be the first to admit it… as I myself have been caught wearing clothes and hairstyles which place me on people’s radar and on the outskirts of that which can be” trusted.” Yet I feel there is basis in that the attire represents a culture and the culture inherently embraces and glorifies gun violence.
Note (to the OP I was responding to) that the one time we have actually had a face to face was after yelling NAZI scum out of our town and that my misgivings over an open carrier is in no way influenced by color, rather by the CHOSEN appearance of the carrier.
The author of the piece is obviously grasping for straws when they suggest that we view the third picture with the same comfort or discomfort as the first. Exhibit A. shows white kids with guns. I was one myself. Exhibit B. shows a black kid with a gun… race aside… I was one myself. But the third picture… exhibit C…shows children in military formation wearing clothing reasonably associated with militancy. The only accurate relation between the three would be if the white kids were sporting swastikas and the black kid was flashing gang signs.
The last issue I take note with is the line: ” If we are to believe that gun ownership is a constitutional right…” There really is nothing ambiguous about the Constitutional protection of gun ownership. If enough people wish to challenge that, and enough people have their say… such is the way of the Republic. But so long as the Constitution remains intact it is not, as the author states, a matter of BELIEVING gun ownership to be a Constitutional right, but recognizing that it is one.
Many of my right leaning friends consider me a low-down pinko. Many of my left leaning friends don’t understand how I can get in bed with some conservative issues. But this piece, the way it butchers fact, distorts logic, plays cards of division, and questions that which is clear makes it easy to pick a side on this one. The left is about as well served by this kind of writing as the right is by assholes like Rush Limbaugh.
I should also point out that the article mentions that the photo of the African American youth which brought such outcry clearly states that the picture was obtained during a RAID… which you know… implies that the parents weren’t exactly teaching civic virtue. Could it be that the police officer and the community which blasted this photo aren’t the racists they are portrayed as by a knee-jerk, over sensitive, fact-bending media but… GASP… actual criminals????
While our problems with gun violence certainly contain a racial component (such as by the incredible damage done to black/minority communities by an inherently racist criminal justice system and the War on Drugs that perpetuates cycles of poverty and thus violence—not to mention our inadequacies regarding education and healthcare in this country which are forms of White Privilege), the author misses his opportunity to explore that correlation, and instead presents a confused thesis based on a demonizing of gun-rights supporters and a pigeon-holing of those who may carry as “insecure or ill-intentioned.” He also asserts that gun-rights supporters live in constant fear of mass-shootings, when I’d argue that anti-gun people are clearly far more afraid of guns. Please note I don’t use the terms “gun-control supporters” and
“anti-gun control people” –they are misnomers– because 99% of people believe in some form of gun-control, despite the rift in degrees of support of those controls and the polarity of the philosophical underpinnings that form peoples’ opinions.
The author really should have written two, unrelated articles if he wanted to use all the material of his op-ed: One about racial profiling, and another one on why he thinks nobody should be able to carry a gun. If there’s a component of “white privilege” in the sphere of gun-ownership, it is the cycle of poverty in minority communities that is exacerbated by racist political and socioeconomic policies and biases.
Interestingly enough, while gun violence has harmed minority communities over the past few decades (although murder rates are currently at a 20-year low), ironically enough the political importance of the 2nd Amendment as it related to the Civil Rights movement must be noted: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
Per usual, these things are not so simple, and there is a severe lack of informed and respectful dialog regarding this issue from both sides, unfortunately.
You speak of white privilege yet you push for a system in which only the wealthy and powerful have the right to self defense.
No, I want a world where the police protect people and we stop having monthly mass shootings and thousands of gun murders a year.
On the other hand, you (like the gun manufacturers) have an incentive to keep the flow of guns up “homeguntraining” and appear to be willing to overlook these deaths if only you can keep making money off of the fear that they breed.
As if people who push gun prohibition have no economic incentive to push for it look at Gavin DeBecker.
Also the police have no legal obligation to protect citizens. Read the Warren v. District of Columbia court decision.
Reblogged this on One Blue Stocking and commented:
This is a great piece that highlights a number of problems in our society. I recommend you give it a read.
“No, I want a world where the police protect people and we stop having monthly mass shootings and thousands of gun murders a year.”
The police are not your private bodyguards.
The police have no legal obligation whatsoever to protect you as an individual. You can’t sue them if they don’t, and even if they are negligent in not protecting you. This has been to the Supreme Court numerous times.
When seconds count the police will be minutes away. That is a common saying, but encapsulates an absolute truth.
If you can’t, or won’t protect yourself then what befalls you is your fault, or the fault of the government if it prohibits you from efficient (i.e. with a gun) self protection against armed and dangerous criminals and psychopaths.
What you want (police protection) as in individual does not exist as either a right, or a guarantee. More importantly, you couldn’t afford to hire enough police to provide everyone a bodyguard when they needed it.
Therefore it is your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones.
Jeffrey Snyder had it right here:
A Nation of Cowards
“Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one’s duty to one’s community.”
Pingback: White Privilege and the 2nd Amendment | Oppression Monitor
“Nine times out of ten, Nazi comparisons are the last refuge of the intellectually disabled and this is not that unusual tenth case.”
Read the whole exchange and I didn’t see lwk2431 calling you a Nazi. I got that he was referring to the propaganda factor. The guy he mentioned was famous for propaganda. At least that is how I read it.
Lot of stuff you didn’t address either, looks to me.
And it is still true that the police are not your personal bodyguard and have no legal obligation to protect you personally. Their duty is a more ephemeral one to the “community” or some such escape clause it seems.
“(not that there is a proper age to use an assault rifle)”
Its probably not an assault rifle, real fully automatic or burst fire assault rifles can only be obtained through the rigorous NFA process and are several thousands of dollars due to the Firearm Owner Protection Act which bans them after the date of its enactment and only allows grandfathered ones for use. As for the “machine pistol”, its a Tech 9 AB-10 semi-automatic which is functionally no different than the semi-automatic handguns your own gun control proposals say should be allowed. I see your point, but the fact that the 2nd Amendment is unfairly applied is not a problem with the Amendment itself but rather in spite of it. One of the first rights to be stripped of free blacks in the American Colonies was the right to bear arms (this predates the Amendment obviously, but the right to bear arms was recognized under common law and the English Bill of Rights, as well as possibly the Magna Carta)
“…only if you are a member of a well-regulated militia.”
Yes but your leaving out “the right of the PEOPLE”, if the 2nd Amendment was only for militias than it would have been redundant as a right anyway. Your also ignoring the historical context where the line between militia and the people was blurred. Jefferson gutted the Navy specifically for this reason, he figured the people would be able to self-organize and form militias like in the Revolution. And few if any gun control proposals short of a universal ban on and confiscation of nearly all guns could have prevented Sandy Hook, and even if that was accepted as legitimate, it would be nearly impossible to enforce short of and even with martial law.
At the time of its creation, there was no standing army, thus nobody was given a de-facto right to own a firearm. As such, state militias (particularly slave-owners in border states looking to stop escaping slaves) demanded protection for their rights to own weapons. The current equivalent to these militias are police and national guard forces, not random citizens who happen to own weapons.
While we are talking original intent: The 2nd Amendment was redefined during Heller and, for a vast majority of its existence, was considered a state-right, not an individual one.
No one mass shooting will be stopped by gun control, but it will certainly cut down the frequency of their occurrence in aggregate–simply look at other countries’ examples, such as that of Australia.
One of the biggest myths about gun control is that it has worked in Australia. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia only banned semi automatice rifles and shotguns and pump action shotguns and did not stop crime. Australians have always been able to own handguns. If you don’t believe me, just check out this Australian gun store at http://www.adelaidegunshop.com.au/. You shold also view this Australia news report.
While it is a fact that no mass shootings have taken place in Australia since 1996, there is absolutely no proof that gun control is responsible for this. Guns are still plentiful and it is still very possible to have a mass shooting with the types of firearms that are available there. We need to look at what else has changed in Australia since 1996. Did their mental health care system improve? Did their courts start sentencing violent criminals to longer sentences? Did they increase funding to hire more police? Before 1996, did they even have a system in place to perform back ground checks on gun buyers? What other social differences are there?
I disagree with your statements about militia, there are quotes by the Founders specifically referring to the right of the people, and the fact that there was no standing army is exactly why the right applied to citizens, not merely the states, this was even a factor in some of the Founders opposition to a standing army. Look at the historical precedents of the 2nd Amendment such as common law, the English Bill of Rights, and Lockean and Aristotelian political philosophy , all of them referred to an individual right or at least a right exercised by the public interdependently of the government. Also the Australia argument is not as clear as it seems Firstly, handguns, the perfect mass murder weapons were not banned after the Port Arthur massacre, secondly correlation does not prove causality, and finally the statistics are disputed. While it is pretty much unanimously agreed that gun suicides were reduced (not much of an accomplishment when you think that hardcore suicide is a pretty much unpreventable act and could simply be easily conducted successfully by numerous other means) its effect on gun crime is disputed. Gun crime peaked after the ban before falling, and there is some evidence that gun crime was already dropping before the ban although this too is disputed-the point being there is no clear consensus and its hard to say the ban was a factor because mass shootings themselves are extremely rare and often unpreventable. Drug gangs still kill each-other with guns as well there. Another good example is the UK, despite banning nearly all handguns and semi-automatic rifles over 22 caliber a third mass shooting happened there (while technically it might have been more of a spree killing) in 2010.
Also trying to construe the right to keep and bear arms as a racist white privilege against blacks is inaccurate because it applied to free blacks until the white’s took their rights as slavery became a racialized institution to replace white indentured servitude.
Pingback: White Privilege of Gun Use | Nel's New Day
Because the Black Panthers were terrorists, you fucking idiots! White privilege is a myth!
Soo… being “white” allows me to buy a gun w/o a background check?
The Black Panthers started out as a group of young men who got fed up (in Oakland,CA) with being harrased and ilegally arrested by “bad” cops ,who had nothing better to do than drive into the black part of town,at night,to “fill” thier quotas. The men took up arms and literally chased these cops out of thier nieborhoods. They quickly became politicized , started food banks and drives,nieborhood schools and did thier best to get EVERYONE involved. Huey Newton(?) usually (openly) carried a sawed off shotgun about a .5 inch longer than allowed by law,at the time. He also carried a tape measure so when he was stopped by local PD he proved he was in his legal rights! They always(as far as I know) let him go on his way.
The panthers quickly became a political party in CA and started branches in major black communities throughout the US.
The FBI took notice,did not like what they saw,started COINTELPRO(?)……….and the rest is …history…….
Havn’t read a lot about the”new” BP party ….as far as I can tell, they are a gang of cowards who havn’t got a clue to thier history…….
My spouse and I stumbled over here from a different web address
and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so now
i’m following you. Look forward to going over your
web page yet again.
Pingback: Police Shoot Black Man with Toy Gun, Give Perfect Example of White Privilege in Regard to the 2nd Amendment | The Progressive Cynic