Is gun control racist?

Legion Troll

A fine upstanding poster
Clash-4.jpg


The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns.

For most of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress black Americans. The South prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns.

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state.

The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North.

General Daniel E. Sickles, the commanding Union officer enforcing Reconstruction in South Carolina, ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

That same year, Congress passed the nation’s first Civil Rights Act, which defined the freedmen as United States citizens and made it a federal offense to deprive them of their rights on the basis of race. Senator James Nye, a supporter of both laws, told his colleagues that the freedmen now had an “equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

President Andrew Johnson vetoed both laws. Congress overrode the vetoes and eventually made Johnson the first president to be impeached.

Whether or not the Founding Fathers thought the Second Amendment was primarily about state militias, the men behind the Fourteenth Amendment—America’s most sacred and significant civil-rights law—clearly believed that the right of individuals to have guns for self-defense was an essential element of citizenship.

The aggressive Southern effort to disarm the freedmen prompted a constitutional amendment to better protect their rights.

A hundred years later, the Black Panthers’ brazen insistence on the right to bear arms led whites, including conservative Republicans, to support new gun control.

No group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement.

Opposition to gun control drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand on May 2, 1967. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.

Like many Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement.

Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity.

In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.

Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance.

Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.”

Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine in hand.

Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”

Guns became central to the Panthers’ identity, as they taught their early recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.”

The Panther arsenal included machine guns; an assortment of rifles, handguns, explosives, and grenade launchers; and “boxes and boxes of ammunition,” recalled Elaine Brown, one of the party’s first female members, in her 1992 memoir.

Some of this matériel came from the federal government: one member claimed he had connections at Camp Pendleton, in Southern California, who would sell the Panthers anything for the right price. One Panther bragged that, if they wanted, they could have bought an M48 tank.

Newton made sure recruits learned how to clean, handle, and shoot guns. Their instructors were black veterans, recently home from Vietnam. For their “righteous revolutionary struggle,” the Panthers were trained, as well as armed, however indirectly, by the U.S. government.

Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.

The Panthers, however, took it to an extreme, carrying their guns in public, displaying them for everyone—especially the police—to see. Newton had discovered, during classes at San Francisco Law School, that California law allowed people to carry guns in public so long as they were visible, and not pointed at anyone in a threatening way.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.”

Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash.

Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to disarm the Panthers. He proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city.

Newton’s plan was to take a group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control.

The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control.

Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun restrictions.

Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the first federal gun-control law in 30 years. Months later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended and enlarged it.



http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
 
Negotiate
Rights
Away

it's why i'm not a member.

it's also the thing that democrats refuse to acknowledge about their history. that they are racists who use gun control to oppress minorities
 
Negotiate Rights Away it's why i'm not a member. it's also the thing that democrats refuse to acknowledge about their history. that they are racists who use gun control to oppress minorities

You have no comment on this bit of history?

Don Mulford, a conservative Republican state assemblyman from Alameda County, which includes Oakland, was determined to disarm the Panthers. He proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city.

Newton’s plan was to take a group of Panthers “loaded down to the gills,” to send a message to California lawmakers about the group’s opposition to any new gun control.

The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control.

Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
 
I've commented on it several times in the past. Reagan was a gun control fan and always has been. california is full of racists, republican and democrat.

Then we agree that gun control is often a racist attempt to disarm blacks while retaining gun rights for whites?
 
Then we agree that gun control is often a racist attempt to disarm blacks while retaining gun rights for whites?

that's certainly how it started out after the civil war. in some states, it still is. in others, it's often an attempt to disarm all civilians. except for the wealthy and politically connected.
 
that's certainly how it started out after the civil war. in some states, it still is. in others, it's often an attempt to disarm all civilians. except for the wealthy and politically connected.

What about the JPP racists who selectively post stories about blacks using guns to commit crimes?

Are they advocating disarming blacks?
 
What about the JPP racists who selectively post stories about blacks using guns to commit crimes?

Are they advocating disarming blacks?

What about the JPP racists who selectively post stories only about whites committing crimes?

Are they advocating that only whites do such things?
 
Back
Top