Gun Rights are Civil Rights


PDA






Zombie_Flesh
March 10, 2011, 09:47 AM
I dream of a day when the question of gun rights will not be questioned - carry will be allowed in all 51 states (we may have annexed Canada by then), The MG registry will be reopened, and anti-gun bills will not even be entertained. There once was a day when racial civil rights were heavily questioned people like Bull Connor stood up for what he believed in and turned the fire hoses on racial civil rights workers and demonstrators. Today we look at that and are agast that it happened and not legislator would entertain a bill to introduce segregation.

Momentum is on our side, and I dream of a day when America looks at the actions of the anti-gunners today and are agast. So my thought is this- Is this a fair analogy to make? Who is/are our 'Bull Connor(s)'? Other thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Rights are Civil Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Pigoutultra
March 10, 2011, 10:12 AM
It seems a fair enough analogy to me. Anti-gunners are distrustful of gun owners and think they have the right to deny our rights. One analogy I hear/read often is comparing anti-gunners to the nazis.

Blackrock
March 10, 2011, 10:25 AM
Until the uneducated namby pamby, people learn the equate the 2nd amendment as being equal to the 1st and ALL the rest of the amendments will we be truly free of all hate and prejudice.

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2011, 10:39 AM
Ever notice that there are no federal laws restricting speech and religion? That is because it would be unconstitutional, yet there is a federal agency that restricts private ownership of firearms.

Pigoutultra
March 10, 2011, 11:19 AM
Both the BATFE and the FCC were created at a time when the president couldn't care less about the constitution.

swinokur
March 10, 2011, 11:59 AM
This is exactly what Alan Gura and the SAF are doing in their lawsuits against MD,NY,NJ, and NC. Peruta in CA will help this. By defining the 2A is an enumerated right the court must use strict scrutiny level of examination. This is being treated as a civil rights issue just like the 60's. As soon as one of these cases is won, the walls will come down fairly quickly. We are going to win one, and that's all it takes.

Vern Humphrey
March 10, 2011, 12:20 PM
I make the point every time I can. Someone once said I was wearing Levis. I said, "I wear Wranglers. Levis has a bad civil rights record." And then explained they give money to organizations that want to restrict the Bill of Rights.

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2011, 12:25 PM
Most gun laws are prejudice in that they pre-judge gun owners as potential criminals bases simply on the POTENTIAL for crime. This works on the exact same premise as racism. Take American Muslims for example. There are about a million Muslims in this country and the vast majority are not terrorists or supporters of terrorism. Most of them are not affiliated in any way with the radical Taliban though there have been a handful of exceptions, usually nut cases like that psychiatrist that snapped at Fort Hood.

Should it be illegal to be a Muslim? Should ALL Muslims be rounded up and arrested as potential terrorists? What about people that look like Muslims or have Arabic sounding names? Should they all be charged with a crime because of what they MIGHT do?

No you say? Well this is EXACTLY how gun laws work. They presuppose criminal behavior based on potential for action rather than criminal action itself. Gun laws are based on stereotyping and collective blame just like all forms of racism.

Nushif
March 10, 2011, 12:51 PM
Most gun laws are prejudice in that they pre-judge gun owners as potential criminals bases simply on the POTENTIAL for crime. This works on the exact same premise as racism. Take American Muslims for example. There are about a million Muslims in this country and the vast majority are not terrorists or supporters of terrorism. Most of them are not affiliated in any way with the radical Taliban though there have been a handful of exceptions, usually nut cases like that psychiatrist that snapped at Fort Hood.

Should it be illegal to be a Muslim? Should ALL Muslims be rounded up and arrested as potential terrorists? What about people that look like Muslims or have Arabic sounding names? Should they all be charged with a crime because of what they MIGHT do?

No you say? Well this is EXACTLY how gun laws work. They presuppose criminal behavior based on potential for action rather than criminal action itself. Gun laws are based on stereotyping and collective blame just like all forms of racism.

Pretty spot-on there.

ZCORR Jay
March 10, 2011, 04:18 PM
Most gun laws are prejudice in that they pre-judge gun owners as potential criminals bases simply on the POTENTIAL for crime. This works on the exact same premise as racism. Take American Muslims for example. There are about a million Muslims in this country and the vast majority are not terrorists or supporters of terrorism. Most of them are not affiliated in any way with the radical Taliban though there have been a handful of exceptions, usually nut cases like that psychiatrist that snapped at Fort Hood.

Should it be illegal to be a Muslim? Should ALL Muslims be rounded up and arrested as potential terrorists? What about people that look like Muslims or have Arabic sounding names? Should they all be charged with a crime because of what they MIGHT do?

No you say? Well this is EXACTLY how gun laws work. They presuppose criminal behavior based on potential for action rather than criminal action itself. Gun laws are based on stereotyping and collective blame just like all forms of racism.
Extremely good example Owen.

ATBackPackin
March 10, 2011, 04:49 PM
If my history serves me correctly, gun control laws were enacted as a form of elitism. They were a method to try to deny certain classes of people from owning firearms, mostly black people.

Shawn

EddieNFL
March 10, 2011, 07:47 PM
They were a method to try to deny certain classes of people from owning firearms, mostly black people.

And Jews, Gypsys, Russians, Okinawans, Californians...

oneounceload
March 10, 2011, 08:01 PM
They were a method to try to deny certain classes of people from owning firearms, mostly........POOR people - color had nothing to do with it....weapons control have been around since the dawn of "civilization"

gbran
March 10, 2011, 09:24 PM
I'm not yet convinced we have gun rights.

We have a constitution that affirms our RKBA, we have Heller and subsequent incorporation, but it still feels more like a privilege we enjoy at the whim of the ruling class.

merlinfire
March 11, 2011, 02:13 PM
I say you're right, as any right a citizen has it a "civil right". However, I think comparing it to the struggle by blacks for equality is not really fair, and is more than a little ridiculous. That was about their worth as people, and the ability to be treated as well as other non-colored people, as they were called at the time.

We do fight for rights granted to us by the constitution and systematically denied by government. But I wouldn't try to draw constructive comparisons.

DammitBoy
March 11, 2011, 02:24 PM
"I have a dream that one day little black children and little white children will be judged, not on the caliber and appearance of their firearms, but on the moa of their respective paper targets." ~ dammitism

swinokur
March 11, 2011, 02:42 PM
I say you're right, as any right a citizen has it a "civil right". However, I think comparing it to the struggle by blacks for equality is not really fair, and is more than a little ridiculous. That was about their worth as people, and the ability to be treated as well as other non-colored people, as they were called at the time.

The roots of gun control were racist. That was one reason the P & I clause in the XIV amendment was written. Southerners at that time were afraid what would happen if freedmen were armed. hence gun control

Vern Humphrey
March 11, 2011, 02:54 PM
The roots of gun control were racist. That was one reason the P & I clause in the XIV amendment was written. Southerners at that time were afraid what would happen if freedmen were armed. hence gun control
Correct. The original purpose of gun control was to protect the Ku Klux Klan.

merlinfire
March 11, 2011, 02:55 PM
"I have a dream that one day little black children and little white children will be judged, not on the caliber and appearance of their firearms, but on the moa of their respective paper targets." ~ dammitism

Nice

hermannr
March 11, 2011, 04:11 PM
As long as polititians can have "we" and "us" verse "THEM"...what group "we" belongs to; or who "THEM" is, is not relavent, only that there is a "THEM" that the fear of the "possible" may be propagandized against. It is the oldest political play to control a people on the books.

Consider WWII: US Citizens of German decent numbered almost 1/2 the US population at the time of WWII and could not, at a glance, be recognized as a "them". US Citizens of Japenese decent constituted less than 10% of the US population, but it is easy to recognize the average person of Japenese decent...Who went to the internment camps because they "might" help the enemy?

DammitBoy
March 11, 2011, 04:14 PM
Both germans and japanese - but FDR didn't care about the constitution

oneounceload
March 11, 2011, 05:17 PM
The roots of gun control were racist. That was one reason the P & I clause in the XIV amendment was written. Southerners at that time were afraid what would happen if freedmen were armed. hence gun control
Correct. The original purpose of gun control was to protect the Ku Klux Klan.


Wow, so the gun control efforts by the English during the revolution, or by Louis during the French revolution were due to an organization that wouldn't exist for about 80 years??? Really now..............

Gun control is about keeping the majority of folks (poor) from being able to overwhelm the minority of folks (rich) who had the means, motive, and power in their control at the time - it was (is) a class struggle, not a racial one

merlinfire
March 11, 2011, 05:58 PM
The origins of weapon control have been around since before guns. I agree it is/was largely a class-based struggle, but it has been racially motivated at times.

Either way, I say there's no need to compare apples and oranges, there's enough compelling evidence without resorting to an approach that isn't intellectually honest.

Vern Humphrey
March 11, 2011, 06:40 PM
Wow, so the gun control efforts by the English during the revolution, or by Louis during the French revolution were due to an organization that wouldn't exist for about 80 years??? Really now..............
Wow -- we kicked the English out and the French live in . . . France!

oneounceload
March 11, 2011, 08:26 PM
Wow -- we kicked the English out and the French live in . . . France!

Your point is, what? You failed history/civics? - the point was that gun control was instituted BEFORE the racial overtones of the Civil War, that these rights are granted by government, not by anyone else, and these rights have been encroached upon by government since the dawn of civilization

swinokur
March 11, 2011, 09:04 PM
We were discussing gun control in our country. What is the point in giving us your history lesson on Franco and English history?

The thread title is gun rights are civil rights. The rational assumption would be US civil rights, not European.Who said anything about gun rights in France and England?

Suggestion: You should start a thread that addresses your position.

DammitBoy
March 11, 2011, 10:27 PM
We were discussing gun control in our country. What is the point in giving us your history lesson on Franco and English history?

The thread title is gun rights are civil rights. The rational assumption would be US civil rights, not European.Who said anything about gun rights in France and England?

Suggestion: You should start a thread that addresses your position.

You are aware that English history and American history are the same thing at the time of the american revolution, right?

He's saying, here in America, before we were americans, the british tried to take away our guns. You might want to try reading a history book instead of the internet so much. :uhoh:

Vern Humphrey
March 12, 2011, 12:46 PM
Your point is, what? You failed history/civics?
No, my point is you failed history and civics.

You have conflated what foreign nations did with a unique American situation.

The common thread, however, is those forign nations instituted gun control as a means of controlling and opressing the "lower classes."

DammitBoy
March 12, 2011, 01:22 PM
:scrutiny:

premier1
March 12, 2011, 02:12 PM
One of my favorites is when the ant-gun politicians says " i'm not out to take the hunters and sportsmens guns from them" In case you haven't noticed the second amendment is about keeping an unjust, and unfair government in check.

HBrebel
March 12, 2011, 03:56 PM
merlinfire is correct. weapons control has been around ever since one person or persons decided that they were above another. In order to protect their reign, the lower class must be not allowed to arm themselves. Can anybody honestly say that "assault weapons" are banned or regulated due to gang violence or bank robbers? It's about us not having the capability to fight back against the ruling class and their armies. If our current elected president had his way, we would only have .22 cal guns or single shot hunting rifles with a limit on caliber. Rights are not given to us by the government, we are born with them and must fight to keep them or have them slowly taken from us. Although I do not consider myself an anarchist, I do not recognize authority. No human being has the authority to control my actions or my thoughts. I am born into this life a free being. I do believe in wrong and right but man made laws are only meant to control, to force the will of the elite on the masses. This may not be the high road attitude but it is my attitude. Tasco74, I agree 100%

Owen Sparks
March 12, 2011, 07:04 PM
Thomas Jefferson said:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Simply owning something like a handgun in no way infringes on the rights of others to live their lives as they see fit. Threatening someone with a firearm is and should be a crime. But just having a holstered pistol is not the same as brandishing it just as having a right hand is not the same as balling up your fist, cocking it back and threatening to punch someone. Gun laws presume criminal intent based only on potential. Most people with hands don't punch people, Most men with d!@#'s don't rape women and most people who own guns don't murder people. In any other facit of the law mere potential is not enough to convict someone of a crime. Crime is an action not a tool.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Rights are Civil Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!