Just pointing out historical reality. The Right was terrified of armed black people. Still are, really. Bigots and hypocrites.
I am on the other side of the debate and I think we have both spent a lot of time being embarassed these past several months. I’d like to think that you have more cause for embarassment than me (at least wrt SDMB) but I think that is largely because the only conservatives left are generally above average or incredibly stubborn. I also think the pro-gun politicians are not as ignorant (on average, not stupid, just ignorant) as the anti-gun politicians.
Segregation was found constitutional in 1896 and segregation was only found unconstitutional for public school in 1954. It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to actually end segregation. The courts might have eventually determined that segregation at the Woolworth’s lunch counter was unconstitutional but its hard to see how they would have gotten there.
I think someone said that once or twice on this board but never as a primary argument. You are arguing against a bumper sticker made of straw.
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot and he would argue the exact opposite if gun rights were a liberal issue. He doesn’t give a shit about our rights, he is partican. He supported governemnt surveillance during teh bush administration but when Obama does it its proof that tyranny is right around the corner.
No, its the ugly side of democracy. All democracy is rife for tyranny of the majority. All representative government is rife for tyranny of the minority and corruption. Our constitution does a pretty good job of minimizing these things.
I think your side of the argument is making a mistake by making gun rights a partisan issue. Not every right wing conservative is a gun nut and a lot of gun nuts are liberals. Condoleeza Rice, however tarnished by her association with Bush may be, supports gun rights because they were effective in protecting her family from the KKK.
Maybe you want that small tent (the TEA party certainly seems to want a small Republican tent) but I think its a good way to lose control of government and hand the keys back to the Republicans.
God made men, Colonel Colt made them equal.
I have nothing to contribute. This was a terrific line in a fucking terrific OP.
To help desegregation along the national guard was deployed in a couple places. Does that count as a second amendment solution?
A Gatling, obviously.
US Marshalls count as the Federal Government forcing it’s mandate over states rights. For the armed militia mentioned in the 2nd a better representation here would be the Klan.
See, they were just acting in defense of states’ rights. Just like the slavers, the Jim Crowers, the lynch mobs, and now the gutters of social programs were all acting in defense of states’ rights under something or other they thought they read in the Constitution. No, it wasn’t a pretext for anything else, that’s what all the bloodshed and pain was about. States’ rights.
What, you don’t believe it?
I’ll go with a bazooka. Probably not quite right for the job, but people take you seriously when you have a bazooka.
Arkansas, if we’re talking about Rosa Parks, but you tell us. Do you think it was a tyranny?
And if so, should blacks have taken up arms against bus drivers?
Let’s recall that Brutus killed Caesar, not some low ranking government employee.
Yes.
No, it wouldn’t have worked.
“Second Amendment solutions” are for killing and intimidating people who can’t fight back. You don’t kill the bus driver; you kill Rosa Parks for getting “uppity” and not knowing her place. The Second Amendment is about thuggery in the modern day, regardless of what it was originally intended for.
No, it was Alabama. Montgomery to be specific.
First, I’ll tell you that if we’re talking about Rosa Parks, we’re talking about Alabama, not Arkansas. Are you thinking of The Little Rock Nine?
Of course it was a tyranny for black people. Are you kidding?
Of course not. I’m not advocating taking up guns against tyrants, though. This whole thing is obviously a mockery of the insane “second amendment solutions” idiots, and trying to say that it’s not analogous because the 1950s weren’t a tyranny is entirely missing the point. They were far more of a tyranny than the current decade is for Tea Party folks.
Cite1: http://www.theroot.com/views/fear-black-gun-owner
Cite2: The Secret History of Guns - The Atlantic
The last article also details the sort of gun controls advocated by the NRA during the 1930s, back when it was a sportsman’s group rather than a collection of loons, gulls and swallows.
Another Limbaugh fantasy. When civil rights protesters tried to arm themselves (see: Black Panthers in California), legislation was specifically passed to strip from them the right to arm themselves, and this legislation was supported by the NRA at the time and such later luminaries of the right as Ronald Reagan. Guns weren’t a means of achieving liberty; they were just another liberty denied (and another means of oppression by those in power).
Is that your argument? “Of course”? I know we’re now in the Pit, so maybe that’s OK, but it’s not an argument that holds any water. Lay your case out, and let’s see if it stands up to scrutiny.
A BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle).
has it really been that long? Black people were prevented by law from using certain water fountains, bathrooms, swimming pools, and schools. There was abuse of power by elected officials to discourage black people from voting and the legal system was tilted against black people so that it was difficult for them to get a fair trial. Those who were convicted were often sentenced to work gangs that were essentially slavery by another name. You don’t think that can be characterized as tyranny?
Here is Websters first definition:
oppressive power; especially: oppressive power exerted by government
So once again I ask, what sort of gun should Rosa Parks have packed when she just wanted to sit in the front of the bus and what sort of guns should black mothers have carried when they wanted to register their children in school?
I’m surprised that we haven’t had a serious answer yet. There always seems to be a lively debate about what sort of firearms are appropriate for home defense.
The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the people who have guns get to decide when there is tyranny.
Stopping African American majorities from voting and forming governments on the basis of the same is pretty much the definition of tyranny. Lynch friendly sham elected judges are but one manifestation of this. Admittedly all this was more toxic during the 1920s and 1930s, but Jim Crow wasn’t exactly limited to public accommodations even during the 1950s.