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