Is gun control racist? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Is gun control racist?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2012, 11:24 AM   #21
Devil's Advocate and Provocateur
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TekGreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 1,872
Liked 1324 Times on 693 Posts
Likes Given: 607

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad
Not only are gun control laws racist, they also discriminate against the poor. Gun control laws tend to push prices up, at least here in CA that happens. Add to that the additional costs to get a handgun safety certificate, the price of ammunition and the proposed taxes on it. Definitely discriminates against the poor.
Vikingdad is exactly right, but take into account how racially skewed the people living below the poverty line are and you can understand how this multi-faceted problem discriminates against a huge amount of the population most in need of defending themselves.

I always like to point out the pink elephant in the middle of the room, so another aspect of this is anti-gunner white guilt. The middle and upper class whites that have insurance on everything that might be stolen, are generally guilty that they have more than other people - that's why those charity commercials on TV showing hungry black children work so well. However, they also realize that a minority with a gun might come after their "stuff," and since the police are protector of the "Haves" and prosecutors of the "Have Nots," the police are the only ones that need guns! Hence, the birth of another anti-gunner. (Please realize I am exaggerating the condition for effect - this is not true of everyone.)

This is also why companies like Hi-Point come under so much scrutiny. Any company that can provide reliable firearms to poor people is arming the very people that both need protection from violent crime the most and scare the Hell out of the middle and upper classed white people when they are armed! If we can get over the idea that every armed black person is a criminal and every armed poor person is going to steal, it would be a far easier world to live in. I imagine the single mom living in government housing being able to defend herself and her children from violent crime rather than the armed drug dealer if CCW is encouraged and affordable firearms are made available. Education is always the answer.
__________________

.
.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)

TekGreg is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 11:31 AM   #22
Devil's Advocate and Provocateur
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TekGreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 1,872
Liked 1324 Times on 693 Posts
Likes Given: 607

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus
I've never seen this question asked on a gun forum before. I was almost afraid to ask it becauase I feared the wrath of forum administrators.

Thank God I was wrong about that!
Locutus, it is an honest question, and an integral part of gun control. We have to honestly examine the reasons behind gun control to understand it. We don't all perceive the world in the same way and to better understand other points of view, we must thoroughly examine a subject from all sides. I commend you for such an intelligent question!
__________________

.
.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)

TekGreg is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:04 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Racist? At times in history yes, as has been pointed out by others, but not today.

If anything its a form of class warfare and this means that race can seem the basis but I believe it is indeed just a matter of class.

__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:24 PM   #24
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 16,712
Liked 8876 Times on 3844 Posts
Likes Given: 1386

Default

Some of you know I am a volunteer supervisor on WikiAnswers (firearms section) I love it when we get the question "Why doesn't congress outlaw cheap guns?" (It pops up about once a month)

My standard reply- "Are you saying that only wealthy people that can afford expensive guns should have the right or ability to defend themselves from harm? Your question/ statement infers that."

__________________

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.


Last edited by c3shooter; 07-29-2012 at 01:57 PM.
c3shooter is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 03:23 PM   #25
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21583 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c3shooter View Post
Some of you know I am a volunteer supervisor on WikiAnswers (firearms section) I love it when we get the question "Why doesn't congress outlaw cheap guns?" (It pops up about once a month)

My standard reply- "Are you saying that only wealthy people that can afford expensive guns should have the right or ability to defend themselves from harm? Your question/ statement infers that."

C3, that is an excellent answer. i believe our country was founded on the principal reasons of equality for all men, not just those of nobility, wealth and entitlement. i think any law abiding should be able to defend themselves, no matter their race, religion, social status or how large or small their income is.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 04:44 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 27
Liked 4 Times on 2 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default This is not racist

This is not racist. Please watch them before you jump down my throat.

The videos are titled "No guns for negroes". They are about how gun control has always been about racism.


__________________
Irishgiant215 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 07:38 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3735 Times on 1824 Posts
Likes Given: 13269

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c3shooter View Post
Some of you know I am a volunteer supervisor on WikiAnswers (firearms section) I love it when we get the question "Why doesn't congress outlaw cheap guns?" (It pops up about once a month)

My standard reply- "Are you saying that only wealthy people that can afford expensive guns should have the right or ability to defend themselves from harm? Your question/ statement infers that."

Hmmmmm, that gives me an idea ...... Aye, me mateys, we be a pirating
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 09:56 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Are gun control laws racist?

They have been,and very recently they have been used by tyrannical governments like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to disenfranchise their victims of means of defending themselves from the violence of the state.

Read here.

Justification for denying people the right to the tools of self defense has been,like slavery,one of the dark sides of the American experience.
We have judges on the SCOTUS defining the right to arms as inalienable,yet supporting "gun control" laws that fly in the face of the very definition of the word "inalienable".

"Definition of INALIENABLE: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred"
-Merriam Webster Online

The issue is that at one point in our history or another,laws that disarm those that government is most afraid of have been justified by one ploy or another.

"Prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to the government, by disarming the bulk of the people ... is a reason oftener meant than avowed ...."
-Blackstone

At the heart of the issue is the very intent and meaning of the Second Amendment,that it provides clear instruction to the government that it shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is,sadly,in todays day and age even refuted by "conservative" judges who claim "long standing precedent" supports a notion of "reasonable regulations" rather then the very language of the Second Amendment itself that it "shall not be infringed".

Lost in interpretation is the reality that the founding generation of this nation would not ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights,or the Second Amendment,because what was feared most at that time was powerful government that with a monopoly on the use of force could tyrannize the populace.

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
-Thomas Jefferson

The founders saw the means of enforcement of tyranny,rightfully so,as weapons.


So to counter that,they saw the means of repelling and even resistance to tyranny as the body of the people,armed,with weapons out of the control of government in all ways and means.

This arrangement would deny the government the ability to enforce its edict by threat of use of force alone,and would demand that the people be reasoned with into accepting government authority,rather then being bullied by a government that demanded obedience via abuse of a monopoly on arms and force.


"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-Richard Henry Lee

Despite the democratic process of election being stipulated by the Founders as a means to peaceably redress bad government by removing individuals from government who were abusive of their power,use of force was seen as the only way to restrain the new government from itself overthrowing the Republic and becoming tyrannical.

And this has a long precedent in world history as well.

No tyrannical government has ever existed without having a monopoly on the use of force over its subjects,when that government did not care to respect said subjects' other inalienable rights,such as the right of freedom of speech,right to assemble,to vote,to habeas corpus and due process,etc,etc,the people under such regimes were not able to resist even mass starvation (the Holodomor of the people of the Ukraine in the USSR) because they were unarmed in the face of government agents.

It is a reality in this world that some people only understand force.Tyrants seem to be especially endowed with this trait.

Our founding generation,having had to repel the tyrant king of england by force,knew this intimately.

Therefor,the second amendment is the vanguard of all other rights.

The right of the people to keep and to bear arms being infringed by "laws" that seem righteous and reasonable to the populace at large has always been the means by which those in power can gain monopoly on the use of force over the people.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Back in the day,it was the use of arms by revolting slaves that scared people into ignoring inalienable human rights.Rather then being enlightened enough to infer that perhaps slavery was the reason for revolt,and not the mere bearing of arms that slaves who wished to revolt could achieve whether or not law allowed it,and rather then trying to achieve human liberty by addressing the issue of slavery as a whole,they resorted to "gun control" "laws".

In modern history,governments have achieved a popular monopoly on the use of force by getting people to consent to "reasonable regulations" that deny those they feel should not have said right,and whether they recognize it or not,they allow their leaders to encroach upon their own rights as well.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
-Thomas Paine

In todays America,we have laws aimed at barring certain "prohibited possessors" of the excersize of their inalienable right,and those laws do,in fact,infringe on the rights of all of us as a whole,but some are still willing to accept these infringements,because they have been convinced that it is the price they pay to be "safe".

No matter that these "laws" come directly from plagiarized Nazi law,some people feel as though they are effective at their publicly proposed role.

"Rights come from GOD not the state. You have rights antecedent to any earthly governments rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws. Rights derived from the great legislator: God."
-John Adams

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
-George Washington

Despite the fact that these laws in modern times have been wholly ineffective at controlling their objective: violent crime.

And despite the fact that now,in order to excersize what is supposed to be an inalienable right,you must ask permission from government to buy arms,and that your purchases are kept on record -de facto registration- with the seller of said arms for 20 years in a "form 4473",which can be acquired any time by government from these dealers if government decides that a national registry is now "reasonable".

They've gotten you to agree to laws that do nothing less then infringe on your rights and endanger the delicate balance of force as envisioned by our founding generation- so that you may feel secure in the knowledge that the evil "prohibited possessors" don't have access to arms (even tho,with regularity,this is proven false).

This isnt about allowing "dangerous people" access to arms.

This is about not allowing government to convince you that you have to allow it to have monopoly on the use of force to keep said dangerous people from having arms.

Government needs to stop allowing truly dangerous people to have 2nd,3rd, 4th,etc,etc chances and keep truly dangerous people off the streets.

Not letting them out after serving 10 years of a 20 year sentence for 1st degree murder and expecting them to obey laws that supposedly keep weapons from them.

Government needs to do its job and restrain proven dangerous people from society,whilst leaving the rest of us alone to excersize our rights without using the dangerous people they allow back out on the streets as an excuse to restrain said rights.

Ultimately,we will have a government we ourselves consent to.This is a law of nature and is as well recognized in the Declaration of Independence.
Should we consent to a government that has a monopoly on the use of force,then we in effect are consenting to tyranny.

We should demand a government that obeys the Constitution,but most of all,does not tread on the inalienable rights of mankind.


"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-St. George Tucker,Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 07-30-2012 at 12:22 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 08:18 AM   #29
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Vikingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 13,978
Liked 8282 Times on 4787 Posts
Likes Given: 10713

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekGreg View Post
Education is always the answer.
This^^IS^^ the essence of what I believe. Education is the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by c3shooter View Post
Some of you know I am a volunteer supervisor on WikiAnswers (firearms section) I love it when we get the question "Why doesn't congress outlaw cheap guns?" (It pops up about once a month)

My standard reply- "Are you saying that only wealthy people that can afford expensive guns should have the right or ability to defend themselves from harm? Your question/ statement infers that."

I always like to make the determination between "Cheap" and "Affordable".

The "cheap" guns can be dangerous (for many reasons), yet there are many affordable guns that are reliable and pretty fun to shoot!
__________________
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 02:11 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
levelcross's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 977
Liked 163 Times on 115 Posts
Likes Given: 260

Default

One of the truest statements that I have ever read.



“The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.”


As for gun control being racist, to a point, yes it is. The best way to stop it from being racist is to stop the control. If you are a legal citizen of the US with out being a convicted felon, you have the rights of the Constitution in front of you, if you have forfeited your rights thru your actions of crime, denial of gun ownership is then non racist.

__________________

Don't question my right to own a gun and I won't question your stupidity not to.

You give Peace a chance, we will cover you if it doesn't work out.

levelcross is offline  
TDS92A Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
chanting U~S~A is racist according to some. downsouth Politics, Religion and Controversy 11 03-08-2012 03:58 PM
Ron Paul Racist Newsletters? Vikingdad Politics, Religion and Controversy 42 01-04-2012 07:54 PM
He must be a racist Jo da Plumbr Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 11-30-2010 04:25 PM
The Tea Party is Racist and Violent CA357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 13 05-05-2010 08:43 PM