Disarm the Negros

[ShunZu]

I believe that's the reason many of us joined places like THR, TFL, the NRA (no matter how much we disagree with a few things they do or don't do) etc. Firearms are liberty's teeth. But it takes courage behind the gun, a steady hand a calm informed mind.

Doesn't get much more clear than that. Very well said.

 

[silverlance]

I can accept that it is not without the realm of possibility that certain genetic predispositions exist that urge the bearer towards agression. however, two arguments make the non sequitur conclusion that the Young Black Male is genetically predisposed to criminality an untruth.

first of all, the YBM is a constructed entity. blacks were culled from a rather wide range of peoples in Africa during slavery, and in the intervening 150 years quite a lot of genetic play has been around. its hard to make the genetic argument that way.

secondly, Anglos, Saxons, and Jutes were well known for thier ferocity and violent tendencies. the word berserker comes from the saxon word berserkergung. indeed, the kings of britannia attempted to buy the aid of those tribes in defense against the feared scots. this was accomplished readily and the fact that the britons were unable to make the mercenary tribes leave after the fact is telling.

the anglo-saxons were definitely white. from angland we got England. now... can we argue that the British are genetically predisposed to agression?

Let us seek to inform them.

amen, brother.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Regolith- Most of your citations while valid, were enacted prior to the current constitution and the 2A. There was no right to arms or right to refuse to bear arms. People were subjects, not citizens.

There are civil rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
There are also human rights inherent to man.
The Second Amendment is a recognition of the human right to ensure the right continues as a Constitutional civil right.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the second was a recognition of an existing human and/or common law right to keep and bear arms that is to be guaranteed not to be infringed.

 

[Titan6]

and how many of those countries are murderers idolized by the media? how many of those countries are scumbags turned into heroes?

I don't know. England is generally given favorable treatment in the press but I don't think that they are a nation of murderers. Certainly Prince Charles is no strong man. Here I will start you off:

Blacks are incarcerated at four times the rate of whites in England. Terrible I know but half the rate of the US is it not so? Certainly a lot less. I think we can agree that 50% is statistically significant?

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003657.html

 

[Titan6]

There are civil rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
There are also human rights inherent to man.
The Second Amendment is a recognition of the human right to ensure the right continues as a Constitutional civil right.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the second was a recognition of an existing human and/or common law right to keep and bear arms that is to be guaranteed not to be infringed.

I would agree if they would agree. Certainly a contract is a piece of paper does nothing for me in of itself. But if I don't make them stick to it they won't.

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

and how many of those countries are murderers idolized by the media? how many of those countries are scumbags turned into heroes?

How many of those countries also get a hefty portion of their media from the US? One of my professors brought in a Belgian media effects researcher by the name of Jan Van Den Bulck. Among a great variety of interesting things, he mentioned that 90% of Belgium's fictional television is American in origin. He also provided an interesting illustration of its effects:

Because Belgium is a relatively small market and multilingual to boot, the American TV they get is not dubbed, it is subtitled with the original English audio left intact. In a study he conducted, Prof. Van Den Bulck found that when asked what their rights were if arrested in America, 38% of 12-year-old Belgians could recite the Miranda rights in full and in English. Belgians of this age have not yet taken English in school.

He also recounted a story told to him by friend in the police. A break-in occurred in a neighborhood, and the police picked a man up. They thought he didn't but weren't sure, so they took him in for questioning. The man immediately declared his guilt and offered to write and sign a confession. After doing so, the detainee claimed that he must be let go. When asked why, the man claimed the police had not read him his rights and he must be released because of the procedural error. The police then had to inform him that he was in Belgium and did not in fact have those rights.

Thinking it was just a made-up story or an isolated incident, Prof. Van Den Bulck told the story at a talk he gave to a group of police officials. When he told it, he said most of the audience just nodded. Apparently this is not uncommon in Belgium, and considering that their consumption of American media is not uncommon, the results could be extrapolated across Europe, as well.

Keep in mind that its not just television we export, but movies and music, as well. Even a disproportionate chunk of Internet content is American in origin. They're getting the same "scumbags" proffered as idols that we are. I'm not saying that you're wrong, and it makes sense that that could be part of the problem, but I don't think the answer to the problem of racially disproportionate gun violence or gun violence in general isn't going to be a simple one. I'd even go so far as to say that I don't think anyone knows the answer right now. If someone did, there wouldn't be a problem, or at least there would be something effective being done about it.

EDIT: Sorry, Art. Your post about staying on the original topic came while I was still typing

 

[Owen Sparks]

Hang on there Art. I think we all can agree that no law abiding American of ANY race should be disalowed the use of arms based solely on generalized tendancies. Only individual criminal convictions should bar anyone from owning firearms. Race is just another angle to attack our rights be it by former slave owners in Georgia, or by the Reverand Jackson.
Bringing up old laws aginst negros owning firearms is sort of a reverse psycology to counter the Reverands contention that guns cause crime. It makes people realize that the 2A is indeed a civil right.

OS

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Congratulations to us all. We have kept a thread on race going nicely for four pages. I think this is proof of the discussion that can go on here. This also proves to everyone that gun owners are not just a bunch of rural white folk that are paranoid of the government.

 

[hugh damright]

The author's assertion is that Georgia's gun control laws are not intended to prevent crime, that they are all about perpetuating racism, oppression and white supremacy. But the history provided seems to show that gun laws, while they may be targetted for blacks, are intended to prevent crime.

For instance, when some slaves here in Virginia started "axing and beating to death all of the whites that they could find, including women and children", and Georgia reacted with "harsh laws", I think the harsh laws were intended to prevent crime such as what happened in Virginia ... I almost get the impression that the author thinks that the slaves were justified in murdering Virginians, as if it wasn't a crime.

Another example is the story about a "great influx of negro laborers" into turpentine and lumber camps, the resulting black on black crime, and an act "passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and sawmill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.” It says the intent was to reduce the unlawful homicides, yet the author seems to insist that such laws are not intended to prevent crime but rather to perpetuate racism, oppression and white supremacy.

By the way, the article has some tale about Georgia ratifying the 14th Amendment in 1868, elected black legislators being removed from office and then having an armed march and being ambushed by "white townsmen". The way the author tells it, everthing was all nice and proper until the "white townsmen" decided to subvert their frame of government. But I think what really happened is that Georgia voted against the 14th Amendment in 1866, and they were then kicked out of the US and put under military rule, their legitimate government replaced with federal puppets, and their Constitution rewritten.

I don't think we can blame the South for reconstruction, racism, or gun control. I do believe that there is a relation between gun control and race, and I believe that there are regional differences over gun control ... but the South has the blacks, and the South is the pro-RKBA region.

 

[Orthonym]

I think my ethnic group was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,

in a back-handed way.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States;..."

They were talking about not allowing any more Scotch-Irish folk to migrate here, we being famous troublemakers, fierce in fighting, insubordinate, and having Presbyterian tendencies, too.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Gun control laws have always been to protect the people in a position to influence the laws from some perceived threat.

Gun violence today is a perceived threat by many outside the gun owner community.If there was no gun violence,there would be no call for gun control.So,if we want some relaxation of the opposition then the ones perpetrating this violence need to be stoppped.

Saying that black gang members can't be pointed out because the Columbine assassins were white is ridiculous.Both need to be held to account.

I don't think anybody has said it was a genetic other than a cultural problem in either case.In the case of blacks,whites caused the cultural problem.

Going in to some defensive mode every time race is brought up is non productive.

There is a growing number of affluent Blacks in this country
and there is a troubling and persistent number of poverty class Blacks.At this point ,other than history,they have little in common.

 

[Deanimator]

This also proves to everyone that gun owners are not just a bunch of rural white folk that are paranoid of the government.

Indeed, some of us are probably urban Black folk that are paranoid of the government...

 

[Beatnik]

I don't think anybody has said it was a genetic other than a cultural problem in either case.In the case of blacks,whites caused the cultural problem.

ZeroJunk, I think I agree with you, but only so far as this: there's a reason why Justice has a blindfold on. Or at least is supposed to.

I'm "white". I'm a combination of Irish, Alsatian, and English who settled in Pennsylvania. I've had absolutely nothing to do with the race issue in America, and nobody in my family's history has, either.

It seems to me that my forebears came to this country because they were playing a different game here. Keep your nose clean, go to work, keep what you earn, and enjoy the right to defend yourself and your property if necessary. And if something bad happens, deal with it, either by yourself or as an extra-governmental group.

(edit: I'm not talking about vigilante justice. I'm talking about stuff like getting into a bad mortgage deal.)

People continue to come to this country because it's a good game with easy rewards. Some drawbacks, but it's the best game out there.

Some, it seems, don't understand that those are the rules to the game. Others, it seems, are in favor of changing the rules of the game to accommodate the people having trouble with it.

If you think that everyone who is having trouble with the game is black, I invite you to hang out in a Church office some time - it doesn't really matter what denomination. You're going to see all sorts of drifters floating in and out looking for handouts, not just black drifters.

Likewise, I'm only interested in protecting my ability to continue playing this game under these rules. The statement "whites caused the problem" is not only untrue, it's racist and offensive. The pdf from the original post contains stories of how whites bore arms along with the blacks!

I'm only interested in what's happening now. And right now, you can't find anyone who is seriously advocating gun control for racist reasons.

You can point to a lot of reasons why, despite the fact that they're not doing it for racist reasons, it continues to have racist, divisive results. That, I think, is why this article is important. It shows that these laws have racist results.

I am against the notion that we need to throw race around like a bargaining chip in this debate. It's counterproductive.

When I drive through Southeast DC (which is as little as possible), I don't see poor black crime-ridden neighborhoods. I see PEOPLE whose right to defend themselves has been denied, who have been raised to believe that someone else is going to take care of their problems for them. I see people who don't know the rules to the game.

I'm going to continue to preach that message, and leave race out of it. If we let Jackson and Sharpton be the only people talking about race, then they'll be the only people talking about race, and therefore the only racists.

 

[TX35]

I think that most, if not all of the people on here who are yapping about how blacks don't cause most of the crime, have never lived in a black neighborhood!!!

 

[Beatnik]

Actually, I spent three years in a, shall we say, fairly monochromatic school in New Orleans.

I was also the only person in the lunch room who chewed with my mouth closed. What racist conclusions can we draw from that?

 

[ZeroJunk]

The statement "whites caused the problem" is not only untrue, it's racist and offensive.

So, bringing Blacks here against their will, keeping them as slaves, and turning them loose with basically nothing was not a factor in any of this?

 

[stephpd]

Gun control

I know this is a gun forum but I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the right to own and use a gun for protection is STILL being used to keep guns out of black peoples hands.
Lets look at the fact that people convicted of felonies are denied the right to own a gun as well as the right to vote.Consider for a moment that the jails are populated by a high percentage of blacks. I believe that after doing your time and you're released from jail your rights should be restored. That includes the right to self defense and the right to vote. Both of these keep a large percentage of people form being involved in th political process which took away their rights.

How do we expect a felon once he has done the time for his crime to return to society and become an active participant without those two rights. It become a never ending circle. Unable to get a good paying job they return to the poorer neighborhoods. They can't own a gun to protect themselves, legally, they would have to commit a crime to get a gun just to protect themselves and unable to vote they can't have representation of their voice.

Doesn't a person convicted of a felony have the right to defend themselves?

I don't remember but didn't Tim Delay of Enron fame kill himself after being convicted of a felony but before he went to jail?

Seem to me he did more harm to more people then a bank robber but since it was a white collar crime he was treated much better then the robber.The amount of money he stole was certainly more then most snatch and grab type of crimes. Granted he didn't use a gun in his crime but stole more then every blue collar criminal.

Just seems to me that even our current laws seem slanted to oppress the poor.

It's not just the laws from 100's of years ago. The laws still work to oppress the minorities.

I happen to live in Delaware and within the last year saw an example of the difference the law applies to whites and blacks. One prominent family has a man who was convicted of drugs and guns. Felony conviction. This year he was accused of rape. Police went to his house to collect evidence of the rape and found guns. That was a felony but he's still free. No charges brought against him. Either for the rape or the guns.

I'm sure if he had been black he would be sitting in jail with no bail.

 

[macFarlaine]

Re: titan6 comment,no disputing those figures they are quiet correct.I'm ashamed to say we have never properly tackled our racist factions..Leave off Prince Charles though he's a good man,and loves his hunting.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

So, bringing Blacks here against their will, keeping them as slaves, and turning them loose with basically nothing was not a factor in any of this?

I think we have hit on the heart of the matter. Historical fact: African nations made a handsome profit selling their losing adversaries to Europeans for slave labor. I honestly don't think that slavery in and of itself was the problem. It was the fact that slaves were viewed as property and not as people. In the past slaves were seen as people that owed a debt to their master. This view of people as chattel because of the color of their skin is what screwed the whole thing up. When you look at a person as property, gun control becomes obvious. I wouldn't want anything I owned armed because it would hate my guts. I wouldn't give a knife to my car or refrigerator if it could kill me(don't get me started on computers). The problem today is that some people are still so wrong headed that they believe that anyone with darker skin is automatically 'lost belongings" so to speak and can't be trusted with anything. These are the same people that believe that we shouldn't be able to choose our own health care, insurance plan, or manage our own money. I find it extremely offensive that people still consider minorities as some dumb animal that must be coddled like a small child in order to protect them from the choices that they believe they are not capable of making.

 

[macFarlaine]

We did not pay African countries money for slaves,we just took them,killed them,raped them,and sold them on to rich land owners who mistreated them and made profit from them for generations.

 

[TX35]

What is this "we" crap?? Have you ever owned slaves? I have not, nor did my Father, his Father, & his Father & so on & so on....So, if you feel you owe them something, keep kissing their ass & pay up, but DO NOT INCLUDE ME!!!!!

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Great, Sharpton is on CNN at some march about justice and civil rights. No one at a civil rights march is armed, do they not know that armed men are free and the defenseless are servants? Someone needs to remind this man that MLK tried to get a permit and was refused. Gun beats a loop of rope every time.

 

[macFarlaine]

I was referring to countries not individuals.I do not know you and from your comments I don't wish to.I don't owe anybody anything but I do recognise documented history and have the freedom of speech to comment on it.

 

[Mr. James]

macFarlaine, do you dispute this:

Historical fact: African nations made a handsome profit selling their losing adversaries to Europeans for slave labor.

Unless your knowledge of the slave trade begins and ends with Roots, the fact is black Africans sold other black Africans into slavery. Without that willing commerce, there would have been no black slave trade to speak of.

Your attempt to distinguish between the well-documented practice of African tribes (i.e., "nations") selling their adversaries to European slave traders to African "nations" (i.e., "countries") selling their adversaries to European slave traders is inapposite. "Nations" does not necessarily mean the political states presently arrayed on that sorry continent. In any event, these days, it seems the Africans prefer to keep their slave trade in-house, so to speak.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

In the past a slave was considered to be a person that held a debt to the master. Most of the time that debt was the "price" of the master not killing the slave in battle or when his country was invaded. Slaves could be sold, but for the most part it was transferring the debt the slave owed. I guess it could be considered indentured servitude more than slavery as many slaves attained the status of freedman. During this time slaves were of all colors, races, and backgrounds. This is dramatically different than the race slavery that happened in the West Indies and Americas. In that system people were viewed not as people, but property because the color of their skin made them inhuman in the eyes of their owners. The sad fact is that many people today still believe in racial supremacy. What is even worse is that many of the "leaders" of the "black" community work against their own people by perpetuating the myth that people of dark skin cannot rule themselves and need the government to nanny them.