Black men already do open carry and it’s no big deal. That is, in the states where open carry is common, you do see black men also open carrying.
Gun ownership in the USA is based upon the revolutionary war, and the idea of the Founders where local militias are the backbone of defense, not a regular army. The “Minute men”. The idea it came from fears of black uprisings is nonsensical, since that fear arose later, after the Bill of Rights was passed.
This is totally false.
If you take a look at the states with open carry laws, it does by no means match the more racist states.
The * modern gun-rights culture* is all about ‘stopping the gun grabbers’ or even “surviving in a post apocalyptic world” , not in any way anything to do with "racist notions of scary black men ". I will admit that is there one element of racism that does occur- a fear of “Sharia law” being implemented in the USA.:eek::dubious::rolleyes:
This whole Big Lie was promulgated to make gun owners look bad. Trust me, they can do that on their own, without people making up crap.
He said "I can’t think of a greater example of modern racism in our society than knowing what would happen to a minority member exercising their god-given right to walk around with an exposed gun compared to a white guy.
A few years ago, coming home after work, I drove into my neighborhood and saw a guy and a lady walking a tiny dog… completely ordinary, but the guy had a rifle slung over his shoulder. I couldn’t help but think that if this family was black and some homeowner called the cops, this guy would end up dead. But a white guy? He’s just gun nut. No biggie. He’s not out to hurt anyone."
He cites as an example of racism what he *knows *would happen to a hypothetical black guy.
Obviously my hypothetical does not count as evidence, nor did I claim it was. My evidence is the rapid response to the Black Panthers movement in California a few decades ago.
Well, I could also write a plan to send someone to Mars without ME actually going. It would be putting other people’s lives at risk for our benefit. I don’t think me being playing a part in a plan has anything to do whether or not the plan would work.
Yeah, but see CA was already going that way, open carry was uncommon, and the Police would stop a man of any color walking along a city street with a open gun (I know they stopped me a a buddy walking home from *scouts *with a .22 rifle). Sure, they’d let him go, but they would harass him a little (yes, more if he was black, that was then). CA was on slope into more and more gun restrictions anyway, and they just awoke lawmakers into realizing that open cary was in fact, legal. A similar demonstration by the Nazis or KKK would have made the same laws.
Thank you for posting that article.
I personally think that the conservative response would not differ all that much today, as long as liberals ignore the issue to the degree that it doesn’t become framed as a liberal vs conservative issue.
Or maybe I’m just being naive about how brazenly racist lawmakers could be and enact laws, as you say, that targets scary black men with guns.
Except in 1967 the Democrats held a majority in the CA legislature, something that more or less has been that way (a couple brief exceptions) , so it couldnt have been passed by “white conservatives”. The Mulford Act had wide support from both parties, including the liberals.
In fact Conservatives are against gun control, liberals are for gun control. So the entire idea is fatuous.
The CA legislature has passed the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and is also among the most liberal legislatures in the USA.
Do you not see the difference in volunteering a generic individual to embark on an ambitious mission of exploration for the benefit of all humanity versus volunteering a stigmatized minority group with a long history of oppression and exploitation to be cannon fodder in a deeply-entrenched political battle?
I mean, if black people followed your advice and we took to the streets en mass with AK-47s, it is totally true that we might change the whole gun control debate. But we might also set back the struggle for black equality by 50 years, since suddenly we will be seen as a bunch of militant radicals instead of normal, everyday peace-loving citizens. I’m not sure me being discriminated against by law enforcement and “concerned neighbors” is worth you no longer having to have panic attacks over an active shooter hiding under your bed.
For one thing, given the fact that almost all states permit some form of open carry and that “more racist” is a pretty vague designation, I think that this claim about whether or not gun laws “match” with racism at the state level is pretty incoherent.
For another, even if it weren’t incoherent, it wouldn’t contradict my claim about gun-rights culture being influenced by racism. As this opinion article describes,
True, I didn’t mean to imply that only white conservatives supported gun control as a means of countering the perceived threat from scary black people.
Nor would I venture to assert that the current gun-control movement isn’t also somewhat influenced by fear of the perceived threat from scary black people. Racist stereotypes, as I noted, are ubiquitous in our society, and modern gun-rights culture isn’t the only thing they help drive.
Open carry of rifles is fuckin’ stupid. And using minorities as a pawn in an underhanded scheme like this is highly distasteful. Just no.
The history of gun control in this county has always been rooted in racism. Those who supported gun control were motivated by racism.
Minorities today represent a growing demographic of gun owners, and good for them.
The NRA of 1968 isn’t the NRA of today. They werent a gun rights organization back then. They were even nonpartisan. It wasnt until after the 1968 Gun Control act that the anti-gun control wing started to take control, in fact the the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), the lobbying branch of the NRA, wasn’t even established until 1975.
That article is also wrong in “They are a lobby group funded by gun manufacturers, and their only goal is to sell more guns.” The NRA was founded in 1871. The revenue of the NRA is about $225M a year, of which not even $5M is from gun manufacturers.
*In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,[202] with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.[203] Less than half of the NRA’s income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.[188][203][204]
Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[188][203][204][205] From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[203] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[205] *
Note that’s under $15M over six or seven years. So that opinion piece has few correct facts- they just made shit up.
Altho indeed some racist wrote a book, he isnt representing the NRA.
Um, you seem to have either misread “funded” for “founded”, or misinterpreted “funded” as “solely funded”, or both.
Your reading comprehension here is not much of a testimony to the accuracy of your judgement. But I have no problem with your disagreeing with the opinion piece’s author about whether the ultimate goal of the NRA is really only to sell more guns.
If someone did that nowadays, they’d probably be mistaken for someone of Indian or Bangladeshi descent.
This book sold a lot of copies, and also generated a lot of joke reviews, after Stephen Colbert talked about it on his show. One of the deleted “reviews” said, “My black parents open carried until the police shot them 146 times” and was accompanied by a Photoshop of the cover with the people in blackface. Not just darkened skin, but outright blackface.
It’s about 1% of the NRA’s income, so that is so little funding that calling it “*They are a lobby group funded by gun manufacturers” *is a lie and then “and their only goal is to sell more guns” since their main goal is to protect guns rights.
The only thing that conservatives criticized Obama for that he actually did, was that he wasn’t tough enough on minorities getting guns.
Bone, is gun control also rooted in racism in all of the many places in the world that actually, you know, have gun control?
Could you clarify what you mean by that? I’m staring at that sentence trying to decipher it, but it remains an enigma. I don’t mean this in the sense of “I disagree with the point you’re making”, I mean it in the sense of literally being confounded by the sentence structure.
Wiki :
Investigations by the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller resulted in indictments of Russian agents on charges of developing and exploiting ties with the NRA to influence US politics. The deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia, Aleksandr Torshin, is suspected of illegally funneling money through the NRA to benefit Trump’s 2016 campaign. In May 2018, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained “a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign” through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that “The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump’s campaign.”[87][88][89] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a “godfather” in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[90][91]
There was this thing called the ACA that drew quite a bit of criticism.
I’m not familiar enough with other country’s histories and laws to comment on those. I do know that gun control in the US was founded in racism, and continued to be motivated by racism after that.