Disarm the Negros

Status
Not open for further replies.
OFF TOPIC...
I never explained very well.Initially there was no agreement with any African nations.Slave traders mainly European landed on this continent and took what they wanted.Money and profit was the name of the game,paying off some village elder or middleman was just not done.As the slave trade became more efficient middle men and direputables were used to round up there now aware inhabitants.Hence the real trafficking of human beings began.
ON TOPIC:maybe somebody out there has figures on UK black residents with permission to own firearms.
 
Why bring this issue up at all, other than to stir up controversy? Isn't it enough to say that discrimination is wrong regardless of whether of its racial or gun control? I personally don't have a problem with any person's skin color. I do have a problem with a lot of attitudes though, especially if its the attitude is that they can take what belongs to me, i.e, rights, property, life, etc! BTW, I put the people with racial problems in the group with people with attitude problem!
 
Why bring this issue up at all, other than to stir up controversy?
Click to expand...
Because the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and people that are all for civil rights seem to leave this one out. If we could get the NAACP on our side I think that we could see permit fees and the NFA tax go away real quick.
 
Gun Control

Not to belabor the point . . .

We have racism in this country.

We have gun control in this country.

The origins of racism are ancient. Modern racism is fostered primarily by people with socialist agendas.

Gun control is fostered primarily by people with socialist agendas.

If we can eliminate the vectors that threaten gun rights, we will, as a side-effect, have an impact on the vectors that promote racism.

So, since this here is a GUN FORUM and not a social issues forum, here's what I propose (Art, feel free to contradict, I won't take it personally) . . .

Let's discuss the gun control side here. We can acknowledge the racist roots of gun control, and use that history to our advantage.

Let us NOT discuss racism and the social/historical machinations that brought about the particular instance of US-flavored racism. Let us take THAT discussion over to APS, where it really belongs. Remember, what is today called APS used to be part of THR, and it is expressly the place for things like social issues and politics.

If we can bring this back on the rails and turn it into a gun control discussion, then I will leave it open. Let's give it another two or three posts.

If it's still about racism, then I'll shut 'er down.
 
It is left out in your country and never even given a mention in ours.We may not have the same civil rights as yourselves but raising issues like this one surely is relevant,and not necessarily for getting people on side.
 
macFarlaine: I've been a high school teacher working deep in the inner city for about twelve of my near eighteen years in the system. In 2001 I was my school's choice for social studies Teacher of the Year.

One of the reasons I'm at the top of my game is that I don't dole out the revisionist crap that's almost certain to be part of any large urban school district's curriculum. I don't walk lock step with anybody's agenda. That's why my classes fill the fastest and graduate a very high percentage.

Fact is, the Africans sold slaves taken in conquest by other tribes to NORTHERN SLAVERS from the colonies who were also running rum and spices along the routes of the Triangular Trade. It was an issue at the Continental Congress when the beginnings of the Constitution began to be formed. The Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom deemed that an lower and an upper house be established (House of Representatives and the Senate) & one would be based on the population of a state. At this point the Southern states looked like huge winners based on the population of slaves. That move was fought and the result was the Three Fifths Compromise wherein every slave was counted as three fifths of a "person" for the purposes of representation in the Congress.

The north didn't go to war because slavery was a horrid and inhumane institution (it is) but rather because the slave plantations of the South were stomping the farms in the north over product because southern "labor" was free and the Yankees had to employ farm hands. There was no way to compete economically. Even Abraham Lincoln was no fan of the slaves. If you'll read his collection of personal letters this can be clearly illustrated. Notice that when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation it only covered slaves in rebel territory, not border states or in the north. That was to encourage slave revolts and to keep his constituents happy by not freeing THEIR slaves. It was also designed to keep foreign powers from investing in the war and prolonging a rich investment opportunity for them. That worked.

Also notice that in the aftermath of the War Between the States, the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed. #13 banned slavery. #14 made former slaves citizens of the USA. #15 gave those new citizens the right to vote. Not enforced on the states for another 100 years until the USSC activist court re-interpreted the 14th to include a bunch of stuff not really there (later including the word "abortion")....but still linking the Amendments down to the states for the first time, ever. Until then, the states were free to continue to abuse and terrorize their former owned property. Southern states passed the "Black Codes" aka Jim Crow Laws that banned any freedman from owning a gun. Who controlled those states politically from the antebellum era to nearly this day? What party? Deomcrats? The sheriff, the mayor and the town councils were all Dems. At night they were the same night riders lighting crosses across the south. It was blatant. It continues today and with the willing help of certain leaders in the black community who've sold their souls for a seat at the table of power. The (NOT SO) Rev AL and The (NOT SO) Rev Jesse come to mind. Clinton's edict that banned guns from all federally supported inner city housing projects were another example.

But the Republicans were the first party to welcome blacks into their ranks and they even seated some early black representatives in Congress. That surprising fact was showcased in a production made by uber LIBERAL WGBH tv (PBS), Boston in the late 1990's. Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The Dems were too busy lighting up crosses in the corn fields.
 
I got in trouble a few posts ago for adding in a jab at a political party so I'm going to be on tippy toes here. I don't see how we can have a talk about the legal issues about gun control in this country without talking politics because legal refers to what is right under the laws, and politicians make the laws. The two are so intertwined that it is ignorance to believe that we can talk legality and ignore politics. The civil rights movement in this country attacks legal issues, but does so on the political level because that is the only way to change laws in this country. Gun control is a term used to describe a series of laws that effectively regulate who can own guns, and what they may own and do with them. Therefore it is impossible to talk about gun control legal issues without talking politics because the two are directly related to the point that to ignore one is folly.
 
Gun Control

True, but let us keep firmly in mind that the substance we want to discuss here is GUN CONTROL.

I don't mind if the peripheral issues enter the conversation.

As long as the peripheral issues don't become the conversation.

So, where were we?

Oh, yeah, GUN CONTROL . . .
 
Oh, that. I didn't hear anyone mention that concealed carry permits cost more than a low cost, effective weapon in some states. If not racist it is definitely socio-economic discrimination along the lines that if you don't have a certain net worth, you have no right to defend yourself.
 
yesit'sloaded, the problem with that logic is you are assuming the the people running that organization are really interested in what the majority of what the every common day working back person wants. As mentioned earlier in a post, where do the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, Julian Bonds, etc, etc, and I could go on naming the heads of this organization and other prominent "black leaders", stand on the 2A. Most of them want to take our rights away. I would love to have the NCAAP on our side, but don't see that happening and really don't believe that was the intent of the original post. But then I'm not a mind reader and I've been wrong before.
 
I guess this thread may be for the archives as proof that we can get along on red hot topics. There is no counter argument of any merit that gun control is not classist, racist, and discriminatory. Any talk of changing it becomes activism, while mentioning the reasons behind it inevitably leads to politics.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Its probably not PC to do so, and maybe far enough OT that the mods might object, but it seems important (to me anyway) that a wild statement that is as far from the truth as this is, should be challenged.

We did not take any slaves. Maybe some of our distant ancestors did, but none of us did. Blaming people alive in 2007 for what happened in the 16th through the mid-19th centuries seems not only unfair, but pointless.

As other posters have mentioned, most slaves were not "taken", in the sense that we sent expeditions over to the darkest corners of Africa to collect them. They were mostly purchased from African tribes who practiced slavery against other tribes, and had for hundreds or maybe thousands of years prior to any white men being involved. Others were the children of slaves already here. In fact, prior to the Civil War, the slave trade with Africa had mostly been stopped.

As for the "killed them" part, slaves were valuable property and were normally not killed for the sport of it. It did happen on rare occasions, but it was not as common as you might think, or could be led to believe by TV movies.

The "rich land owners" thing has also been widely overstated. The majority of slaves were not owned by plantations, but by poor white farmers who generally worked side by side in the fields with their slave (usually they could only afford one).

I suspect slaves were treated not much different than a good mule was. The slave was a source of valuable labor and would be taken care of and generally not randomly mistreated, as that would have destroyed his value as a laborer. No doubt there were exceptions to this, as even today people sometimes mistreat their animals.

It took a long time for the south to get over the attitude that slaves were not real people. It was not much different in the north, where the prevailing attitude was much the same.
 
Gun Control

Gun control.



Gun control.



You are getting sleepy . . . your eyelids are getting very heavy . . . when I snap my fingers you will become preoccupied with GUN CONTROL . . .


*Snap*
 
For the last time I am reffering to WE,BRITS,EUROPEANS....I am finding it increasingly difficult to respond or create posts on this site.I try and adapt my English accordingly but it still seems to fall short.I am relatively plain speaking if that draws gasps or offends I do appologise.I do not watch TV it is all Stargate,Stargate Atlantis,or that X Factor.
 
MacFarlaine, I think what he is saying is that we personally, meaning you and me, never owned or captured slaves. You guys are just confusing which we we are talking about. Sometimes I think we should just invent telepathy or resort to picture based symbols to avoid this stuff. The soldier had his dessert, which was his just dessert, in the desert. I ran down the hall to see the running machine as it ran. Our language is a crazy one. Nosotros idioma es muy loco, no?
 
gc1uh5.jpg
 
New York City's Sullivan Law was written to keep guns out of the hands of the irish.
Click to expand...

Can you blame them? I mean come on. They aren't known as the Fighting Irish for nothing. But the way Notre Dame has been playing the last 10 years, they seemed to have lost that reputation.


Funny thing is That the Movie Blazing Saddles was on AMC last night and one of the funniest parts is when they are deciding to give the Black railroad workers some of the land, the one guy says, OK, We let them in, but Not the Irish!

Ok We'll let the Irish in."
 
You are getting sleepy . . . your eyelids are getting very heavy ...when I snap my fingers you will become preoccupied with GUN CONTROL . . .
Click to expand...
When I check in on this thread, it doesn't seem to be working. :rolleyes:
 
TX 35, I NEVER OWNED ANY SLAVES! grandady didnt have any, im with you i dont owe any body any thing as far as slavery goes, i dont think gun owner ship should be about race, if your not a felon or any thing color should have nothing to do with it, there are alot of things that can keep a person from owning a gun, some of them are good, some not so good, im proud i was born free in a country were i can own guns, but will our kids, grand kids have that? csa:rolleyes:
 
You really need to read the pdf version of the article, because otherwise you miss all the newspaper articles reproduced therein.
 
I got in trouble a few posts ago for adding in a jab at a political party so I'm going to be on tippy toes here. I don't see how we can have a talk about the legal issues about gun control in this country without talking politics because legal refers to what is right under the laws, and politicians make the laws. The two are so intertwined that it is ignorance to believe that we can talk legality and ignore politics. The civil rights movement in this country attacks legal issues, but does so on the political level because that is the only way to change laws in this country. Gun control is a term used to describe a series of laws that effectively regulate who can own guns, and what they may own and do with them. Therefore it is impossible to talk about gun control legal issues without talking politics because the two are directly related to the point that to ignore one is folly.
Click to expand...

Since this is the last post post I could find on topic I would like to continue in that vein, if no one would be offended that is.

I have noticed a linkage in the dates to the rise of civil rights for blacks and the increase in gun control at the same time. I am curious if this is the reason as Arfin suggests?

Gun control is fostered primarily by people with socialist agendas.
Click to expand...

Or do we still have widepread across the board racism? Therefore all of those out of power are subject to rights restriction.
 
Gun control has always been about one group of people trying to control and exercise power over another group of people. The groups in power and the groups they tried to control have been defined in different ways at different times. Whether is was knights and peasants, Protestants and Catholics, masters and slaves, or rich and poor, it has always been about one group trying to disarm another to gain advantage.

The question is whether society can rise above this longstanding tendency and allow everyone to enjoy the right of self-protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Question about 1934 NFA... why?
2
Replies
28
Views
961
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
D
  • Locked
Possible fallout of Heller, Griffin, the 2A, and open carry
Replies
7
Views
642
H088
H
J
  • Locked
Glock 17 or 19 or?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Autolycus
A
NickEllis
  • Locked
Volokh Conspiracy and Negro Gun Ownership
Replies
23
Views
2K
undeRGRound
undeRGRound
Miami_JBT
  • Locked
Oh boy, another GLOCK vs XD thread... with a twist!
Replies
17
Views
595
HPJeep
HPJeep
Back
Top