My latest gun article

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 16, 2003
Messages
672
Location
Virginia
Times Change, But Gun Control Remains the Same

If I could have a dollar for every time an anti-gun scum-sucking lie has been casually tossed into a news story and treated as reality, I wouldn’t be sitting in this gray cubicle. No, I’d probably be lying on a sun-soaked beach somewhere well south, composing a story on a laptop when the urge infrequently struck, rather than my current write-or-starve motivation. I think there would be a frilly drink garnished with a purple umbrella in the sunny picture as well. Oh, and grilled lobster tails.

Haven’t heard any? Sure you have. The lies have been spouted by sunny Katie on The Today Show, in AP wire stories under many names, and by Dan in the evening, repeated until they are accepted as truth. For example: ‘Assault weapons are criminals’ weapon of choice’ (Less than 4 percent of homicides in 1997 involved any type of rifle.) Or how about ‘One child is accidentally killed by a gun each day.’ (True, but only if you count 18-24 year-old thugs as ‘children.’) The gun-grabbers use these lies to push public acceptance of a variety of useless gun control laws, such as the ‘assault weapons’ ban.

Outrageous, but ho-hum, nothing new here. Attempts to restrict the gun freedoms of Americans have been ongoing for centuries. In fact, a close look at the history of gun control in the United States reveals that removing guns from the hands of citizens has often been used as an underhanded method for elites to remove power from the people.

This is precisely what occurred in the state of Maryland in the 1700’s and 1800’s. What was different, however, was that the disarmament strategy of the wealthy planters in charge focused on a particular group of people, not all Americans. Within a few decades of the state’s founding in 1631, the numerous tobacco plantations that sprung up required a lot of manpower to work them. Enter black slaves from Africa. As the nature of man dictates that he would prefer living in freedom rather than in leg irons, a nasty slave rebellion was always a possibility. And a nasty slave rebellion could grow far nastier if slaves had access to firearms. The wealthy planters in charge were aware of this, so the colonial assembly (consisting largely of slave owners) passed the first gun control law in Maryland that severely punished any black person who had a gun in his or her possession.

Chapter XLIV, Section XXXII of the Acts of 1715 stated:

"That no negro or other slave within this province shall be permitted to carry any gun, or any other offensive weapon, from off their master's land, without license from their said master; and if any negro or other slave shall presume to do so, he shall be liable to be carried before a justice of the peace, and be whipped, and his gun or other offensive weapon shall be forfeited to him that shall seize the same and carry such negro so offending before a justice of the peace."

Such efforts to disarm blacks continued after the Union victory in the Civil War. The Union's victory was due, in no small part, to the efforts of approximately 180,000 to 200,000 blacks who had served in the Union Army and comprised about 10 percent of the grand total. They were now free and trained in the use of arms. Former slave owners were a bit leery of running into one of their former slaves on the street, familiar with the use of arms and packing heat. Southern whites also realized that it would be far easier to discourage blacks from acting upon the "notions of a freeman" if they were unarmed and had no effective means to resist intimidation by their former masters.

Due to these unpleasant possibilities, Maryland adopted a new constitution after the war. A major sticking point during debate was the right to bear arms as it related to blacks. During the constitutional convention of 1867, the right to keep and bear arms was debated in the form of an amendment to what is now Article 28 to Maryland Declaration of Rights. Many delegates to that convention, who were either former slave owners or had served as officers in the Confederate army, were not about to guarantee the right of freed blacks to own guns. According to Debates of the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1867, 150-51:

Article 28 was read as follows: "That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government."

Mr. Giddings moved to amend by adding after the word "government" the words, "and every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

Mr. Garey moved to amend the amendment by inserting the word "white" after the word "every".

Mr. Giddings' amendment failed, but it was white fear over free blacks owning guns was the critical factor in defeating the adoption of a right to keep and bear arms in Maryland's Constitution of 1867.

Of course, the above gun control examples of the past have nasty racist overtones that the current movement lacks. But say this for the gun grabbers back then: They were honest in their intentions. These folks were terrified of guns being in the ‘wrong’ hands (people of color), so they did all they could to prevent it.
In the 21st century, on the other hand, anti-gunners are extremely dishonest about their intentions. They use distortions and lies and shady policy to foist their agenda upon unsuspecting Americans under the guise of ‘public safety’ and ‘national security.’ Plus, they have much bigger aims than their ancestors – now they want to disarm not just blacks, but all law-abiding Americans.

Well, at least that’s one honest achievement for the Violence Policy Center and the Million Mom March – they’ve taken the racism out of gun confiscation.

How progressive of them. .
 
Well, at least that’s one honest achievement for the Violence Policy Center and the Million Mom March – they’ve taken the racism out of gun confiscation.

Sorry, but I believe you're mistaken. The leftist extremists are too politically adroit to mention race, but I believe they're much more afraid of armed black people than armed white people. When they talk about "crime" and "criminals," they're really talking about young black males in big cities.

I'd bet someone who's not mathophobic could do an interesting study of the correlations between most draconian leftist extremist so-called "gun control" laws and such factors as percentage of the population that consists of young black males, arrests for drug sales, murder, welfare, unemployment, education levels, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
 
I agree with Standing wolf. They just wont mention who they are really affraid of. Notice how they always focus on the angry white male? That gives them plenty of room to be able to deny any racial discussion that comes their way.

Just the same, an OUTSTANDING article overall. Shame it will never get picked up by anyone, you are just way to correct for any of the mainstream medias to touch it. It wont go along with the party line so to speak. Have you thought about sending it to any of the conservative news groups? (Please keep in mind I have no idea who, if anyone that you may contribute to already. But I would like to read this kind of article in a real live newspaper or magazine for a change!)
 
Not so sure it is prejudice against their color, as in they don't look like us so they must be treated bad kind of thing. It's more of a caution due to new and unusual circumstances kind of thing that is taken into account anytime something happens the first time.

In all my 30 years of hunting I have only happened upon black hunters in the woods one time. It was an interesting experience. But I treated them about the same as I would any white stranger out in the boonies.

When I first saw them walking toward me a lot of questions arose but they were the same questions I'd wonder of any stranger with a gun... What do they appear to be hunting? What kind of guns are they using? How are they carrying them? Do they look friendly? They were dressed a bit strange, but then at least half of you would say the same about me. :D

As we neared I couldn't help but wonder how thie conversation would play out. Greeted them and we stopped to talk as I would anyone else I meet during a hunt. "Whatch huntin? Seein anything? Get any?" Mostly the usual talk other than I did ask them how often they get out to hunt and what they hunt. Seems they do avoid the crowded times like opening day.

That's a shame because they're just people wanting to do what people do. We parted on friendly terms but I've never seen them again.

Probably not a bad idea to use caution with the unknown... But it does seem odd that it takes a couple hundred years for the government to figure out what took me half a minute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top