Gun control or racism

[Jim K]

The governor of Maryland has proposed a law requiring a license to purchase a handgun with fingerprinting, mandatory classes and a $100 fee (in addition to the existing paperwork, police check, waiting period, one gun a month).

He claims it is necessary to prevent straw-man sales, already illegal under state law.

But, Democrats oppose voter ID because, they say, a requirement to go to the bureaucracy to obtain an ID card would have a "chlling effect" on black voters wanting to exercise a right. OK, so maybe I accept that.

But then, isn't a handgun license with fingerprinting and the rest designed and intended to have a "chilling effect" on blacks attempting to exercise a right?

The governor claims his bill is about public safety. I claim it is about plain old-fashioned racism and that the liberals and "progressives" who support it are no different from the KKK except that their sheets are dirtier.

Jim

 

[MedWheeler]

The governor claims his bill is about public safety. I claim it is about plain old-fashioned racism and that the liberals and "progressives" who support it are no different from the KKK except that their sheets are dirtier.

I believe it's neither anymore. Though in the past, many gun control measures have been about keeping newly-freed slaves and their direct descendants disarmed, these days, it's more about keeping the general population disarmed.

 

[hso]

That's consistent with the origins of "gun control" laws historically.

Now, what do we do with that information?

 

[beatledog7]

What we do is call out every legislator who has openly or clandestinely opposed voter ID based on its supposed "chilling effect" on whatever group of voters: black, hispanic, etc. yet is in favor of complex ID measures to own a gun. And we ask each one, point blank:

"If you oppose having a person prove that he or she is a legitimate voter by showing ID because, you say, members of certain demographic groups don't have and can't get ID, then why are you in favor of making members of those same groups show ID to buy a gun?"

When they flail about trying to answer, you supply a possible explanation:

"Could it be that you want to make sure these folks can vote without ID because you're sure most of them will vote for you? Does your election hinge on the vote of the unverifiable voter? Could it be that you don't mind having them show ID to buy a gun--ID you say they don't have and can't get--because once they've voted for you their liberty and their lives don't matter?"

 

[Jeff B.]

I think that's a great point. We need to take arguments like this that expose the Progressives lack of logic and drive them home.

It also seems to be very similar to the old and frowned upon "poll tax".

Jeff B.

 

[Walkalong]

But, Democrats oppose voter ID because, they say, a requirement to go to the bureaucracy to obtain an ID card would have a "chlling effect" on black voters wanting to exercise a right. OK, so maybe I accept that.

I do not accept that. ID is relatively cheap, and there are oodles and gobs of poor whites as well. It is just a ploy.

While much gun control has a racist origin, it isn't how to fight it now.

these days, it's more about keeping the general population disarmed.

Yes. We fight it from a 2nd Amendment and rights infringement angle. Stop letting the enemy separate us.

 

[beatledog7]

Walkalong, of course they can get ID. That's not the point though.

I think publicly pointing out legislators' hypocrisy and blatant self-interest is always a good idea. Put their feet in the fire, let them get burned. They'll remember that pain the next time a vote, UBC, for example, is on the table.

UBC would mean that people who can't get ID--a non-existent group, but one many legislators insist is out there--could not exercise their RKBA, meaning a vote for UBC is a vote against equal rights. No politician wants to go on record as being opposed to equal rights.

 

[JFtheGR8]

I have already challenged Dick Durbin with this very idea about a week ago. I have yet to hear back from his office.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[mikechandler]

I don't think it will fly because the voter ID concept is actually supposed to keep people from voting numerous times - something very common on the left, which is why they oppose it. They have never been opposed to their voters actually having ID cards, which everybody who gets a welfare check already has; they are only opposed to a system that guarantees one vote per citizen, executed by that citizen alone. There was a news article recently about a woman who voted 6 times for Obama - and felt she had done nothing wrong.

So the gun grabbers will just point out they've never been opposed to ID cards, they're only opposed to having to show one at the ballot box. They could use that woman who voted 6 times as an example - it would have definitely "chilled her out".

 

[Cosmoline]

it's more about keeping the general population disarmed.

The general *law abiding* population. The criminals are not impacted by these laws and in fact benefit from them and the conveyor belt of released felons they produce. It's a tactic that's been extremely successful against the urban poor, and kept them under control for decades now. They're looking to expand the tactic.

 

[beatledog7]

...the voter ID concept is actually supposed to keep people from voting numerous times...

In part, yes. But it has more to do with making sure everyone who presents him or herself at the polls is a legitimate voter.

Of course, we all know there's no legit voter in the US who can't get ID. But if there were, it would mean these supposedly legit voters are also unable to buy a gun because they can't get ID. Those opposed to voter ID claim that the ID requirement is violation of rights, but if that's true then requiring ID to buy a gun must also be a violation of rights.

You can't have it both ways. If you can't use being ID-less as a reason to "strip" people of suffrage, you can't use it to strip them of RKBA either.

 

[kwguy]

The racist roots of gun control is certainly about control of people. It may not be based on racism today per se, but it is definitely about control. It always has been, and always is. Today the group being targeted may not be based on race, but it is still a group that is being targeted, with another group wanting to exert control by disarming them. Here are some interesting links. The first highlights how the racist aspect of gun control started in this country, and it's link to registration and current urban gun rules. The second is the entire segment. I like the part around 49 minutes into it where the preacher talks about "assault weapons".

http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle....let-the-government-touch-our-Second-Amendment

http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=290&t=Black-leaders-speak-out-against-gun-control

I believe these were posted before, but this stuff needs to keep circulating. I don't know how to describe the group that is being targeted today with gun control, but the group definitely exists, and it's not based upon race. I guess you could call the group the "pro-freedom" or "pro-rights" group...