WOW! Just, WOW! A message to use in our struggle to protect the 2A.
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
CoRoMo
Member
Disturbingly awesome. Or awesomely disturbing.
Either way, it cuts deep to the heart like it should.
Either way, it cuts deep to the heart like it should.
Onward Allusion
Member
It still amazes me that it is primarily those from the inner cities who fight so hard to have gun control and ban the same firearms that could one day save their lives. Kinda reminds me about the line about the guy in the Nazi death camp hurrying those in front of him to the ovens. <sigh>
You know what? It REALLY amazes me that our own President is fighting so hard for gun control. REALLY AMAZES ME.
You know what? It REALLY amazes me that our own President is fighting so hard for gun control. REALLY AMAZES ME.
Frankly I was a bit disappointed.
There is so many specific pieces of legislation that were tied to keeping arms out of the hands of some races that one example and some graphic images minimally related in a 30 second clip was disappointing.
I mean I know people have short attention spans and it needs to be quick and evoke emotional appeal, but that was exceedingly minimal in demonstrating examples of legislation.
Just in California alone I know specific examples that show the first law against concealed carry without a license (creating the original concealed carry license) were aimed at preventing hispanics and asians from having guns and pushed and supported by the KKK.
That the ban on open carry of loaded guns was to prevent or at least had its support to prevent black activists (and all activists) from walking around armed in public.
Or the similar law against protesting while armed.
Origins of terms like Saturday Night Special specifically refering to cheap guns affordable to blacks.
Without even getting into much more blatant examples in the South.
I would have expected a compilation of numerous pieces of legislation bombarding the reader with the sheer volume of racial ties to gun control, combined with emotion evoking images.
Today and for quite awhile in some states however the racial motivations are mostly a thing of the past, and disarmament of all races in certain classes and income levels a stronger motivation.
Reliving the past for emotional support is understandable but the motivation for most is different today. Though the same in that it seeks to disarm the undesirables to insure the desireables can more easily prevail against them when force is used.
That is also present in other nations we can look to. Where time and money requirements to own a gun are intentionally placed as a barrier to keep those outside of certain minimum income level from typically becoming legally armed.
Whether it requires owning property, or a certain size safe/vault, membership in a shooting club for so many months, etc They create a minimum cost of entry well beyond the cost of the gun itself, which will act as a barrier to most below a certain means in life.
These things are also nothing new in the United States.
In the US with early laws like limiting people to expensive Army and Navy pistols, and prohibiting more affordable guns to set a minimum price of pistol ownership.
To much more restrictive laws on arms of the poor like 'dirks' 'daggers' 'bowies' etc than on handguns which were significantly more expensive at the time.
To efforts to shut down the Ring of Fire guns in the 1980s. To setting melting points that had nothing to do with safety under the pretense of safety on the frames of guns to specifically set a minimum price on guns by removing inexpensive production using such materials. (Before the day of common polymer firearms that all melt well below that point and have proven to be high quality.)
To the two seperate ATF import points requirements of pistols and revolvers both of which include items that add nothing to safety but are included specifically because they increase the cost of the gun and so insure it meets a minimum price point and is for a certain market.
Etc
There is so many specific pieces of legislation that were tied to keeping arms out of the hands of some races that one example and some graphic images minimally related in a 30 second clip was disappointing.
I mean I know people have short attention spans and it needs to be quick and evoke emotional appeal, but that was exceedingly minimal in demonstrating examples of legislation.
Just in California alone I know specific examples that show the first law against concealed carry without a license (creating the original concealed carry license) were aimed at preventing hispanics and asians from having guns and pushed and supported by the KKK.
That the ban on open carry of loaded guns was to prevent or at least had its support to prevent black activists (and all activists) from walking around armed in public.
Or the similar law against protesting while armed.
Origins of terms like Saturday Night Special specifically refering to cheap guns affordable to blacks.
Without even getting into much more blatant examples in the South.
I would have expected a compilation of numerous pieces of legislation bombarding the reader with the sheer volume of racial ties to gun control, combined with emotion evoking images.
Today and for quite awhile in some states however the racial motivations are mostly a thing of the past, and disarmament of all races in certain classes and income levels a stronger motivation.
Reliving the past for emotional support is understandable but the motivation for most is different today. Though the same in that it seeks to disarm the undesirables to insure the desireables can more easily prevail against them when force is used.
That is also present in other nations we can look to. Where time and money requirements to own a gun are intentionally placed as a barrier to keep those outside of certain minimum income level from typically becoming legally armed.
Whether it requires owning property, or a certain size safe/vault, membership in a shooting club for so many months, etc They create a minimum cost of entry well beyond the cost of the gun itself, which will act as a barrier to most below a certain means in life.
These things are also nothing new in the United States.
In the US with early laws like limiting people to expensive Army and Navy pistols, and prohibiting more affordable guns to set a minimum price of pistol ownership.
To much more restrictive laws on arms of the poor like 'dirks' 'daggers' 'bowies' etc than on handguns which were significantly more expensive at the time.
To efforts to shut down the Ring of Fire guns in the 1980s. To setting melting points that had nothing to do with safety under the pretense of safety on the frames of guns to specifically set a minimum price on guns by removing inexpensive production using such materials. (Before the day of common polymer firearms that all melt well below that point and have proven to be high quality.)
To the two seperate ATF import points requirements of pistols and revolvers both of which include items that add nothing to safety but are included specifically because they increase the cost of the gun and so insure it meets a minimum price point and is for a certain market.
Etc
Last edited:
Zoogster, you are correct, but think about it in this context:
This is a viewpoint that has not been brought up from 'the usual suspects' so to speak. This catches them off guard. It's from a segment of the population that your typical anti would not have expected it from, and Star Parker is not even what you would call a 'gun afficionado' or what have you, but this shows that she understands the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
It's one piece of a frontal assault. The words could have stayed up there a little longer though...
What we need are more 30 second clips of the things that you have described, as well.
This is a viewpoint that has not been brought up from 'the usual suspects' so to speak. This catches them off guard. It's from a segment of the population that your typical anti would not have expected it from, and Star Parker is not even what you would call a 'gun afficionado' or what have you, but this shows that she understands the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
It's one piece of a frontal assault. The words could have stayed up there a little longer though...
What we need are more 30 second clips of the things that you have described, as well.
r1derbike
Member
Zoog, I was expecting more video as well, to drive the point(s) home to viewers.
I suppose there is a balancing act between showing too much, or just enough graphic imagery to make a point.
I think some voice commentary would have been good, with enough imagery to drive home the narrative.
Easy to armchair quarterback here, but the horror of it all made me want to see other groups involved besides the KKK, and their atrocities exposed in imagery as well.
Thanks for posting that, hso. Certainly opened my eyes.
I suppose there is a balancing act between showing too much, or just enough graphic imagery to make a point.
I think some voice commentary would have been good, with enough imagery to drive home the narrative.
Easy to armchair quarterback here, but the horror of it all made me want to see other groups involved besides the KKK, and their atrocities exposed in imagery as well.
Thanks for posting that, hso. Certainly opened my eyes.
Twmaster
Member
I've been following the efforts of CURE and Ms. Parker. These folks offer a powerful voice. I'm shocked that other demographics do not follow suit considering some of the atrocities that have been perpetrated against their segment. (Can you say Holocaust?)
Burt Blade
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 477
The first Jim Crow law was ... gun control.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
The video will probably be met with jeer, laugh, mock, scoff, and sneer by the Party faithful.
Don't you realize that modern day America is a land of goodwill, charitableness, and leaders who are filled with benevolence toward their fellow citizens?
No need for guns when you will always have the option to file a lawsuit or cast a vote to redress a grievance or wrong, eh?
Don't you realize that modern day America is a land of goodwill, charitableness, and leaders who are filled with benevolence toward their fellow citizens?
No need for guns when you will always have the option to file a lawsuit or cast a vote to redress a grievance or wrong, eh?
BK
Member
Not as I remember. The first Jim Crow law was a Tennessee statute that required the railroad to supply a separate passenger car for Negros. Before that law was passed, Negros were forced to ride in the freight cars and kept out of the passenger cars that were occupied by whites.
I don't know if Native Americans such as myself were even allowed to board the railroad or if we were also segregated with Negros. I would guess the later. Much of our treatment was in conjunction with other segregated groups.
I also wish there were multitudes more videos like the one posted that covered other specific people groups.
Here is a video on the same subject. Well done, too.
"You Can't Ban Evil."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E&feature=youtu.be
L.W.
"You Can't Ban Evil."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E&feature=youtu.be
L.W.
100% correct. If we learned anything form the last election is the left will pull no punches. Although the left is not above lying, the point still remains. We need to be blount, to the point, no matter what. The message will sell itself, if not spun by the left.
Millwright
Member
It continues to amaze me so many blacks/minorities are so steadfast in their support of the Democratic Party when history shows its long and sordid history of suppression and manipulation that continues to this day. (Witness the Pigford debacle) >MW
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Actually the Jim Crow laws are all about civil rights, about limiting the freedoms of individuals who have been demonized and treated with irrational prejudice. Ring a bell? That is the exact basis of current gun ban proposals and I am pushing where ever I can to make sure it's part of the conversation. I also point out that the 1964 civil rights acts were because we decided laws based on bigotry have no place in a (note the emotionally tagged word here) Progressive Society.
Jim Crow is back.
Jim Crow is back.
- Status
Similar threads
