Civil-rights leaders of the 19th and early 20th centuries also lamented that the right to self-defense was denied them. Fredrick Douglass reacted to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by editorializing that the best remedy would be “a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap.”
The late-19th-century civil-rights leader Ida B. Wells argued that one of the lessons of the post–Civil War era, “which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” T. Thomas Fortune, another black civil-rights activist of the era, argued that it was with a Winchester that the black man could “defend his home and children and wife.”
Now, it should be noted that even if the Second Amendment had been specifically written, as [author of ‘The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America’, Carol] Anderson maintains, under pressure from states in the South that wished to preserve the subjugation of humans, the nation’s sin would have been denying the inalienable right of self-defense to all people.
We don’t attack the idea of free speech simply because people are denied its protections. That fact only accentuates its importance. For most of our history, self-defense was also seen as an immutable right that existed with or without the sanction of the state. “Remember that the musket — the United States musket with its bayonet of steel — is better than all mere parchment guarantees of liberty,” is how Douglass made the case for natural rights. He did it better than many of the Founders. Certainly, he did it better than Anderson.
— David Harsanyi in The 1619 Project Comes for the Second Amendment
Actually, it was the NRA and gun control that sought to disarm the Blacks and other minorities not the Second Amendment.
Well you are half right for most of the relevant history.
On second thought…If the Second Amendment was what she claims it to be it would have been written by Jim Crow and wholeheartedly endorsed by her very own democRat Party and it would probably have included n-word-Gun-Control and today she would be picking cotton. Not only is she ungrateful she has poop for brains which makes her her own worst enemy.
It was specifically Governor Ronald Reagan, leading a bipartisan group of California legislators, who passed legislation aimed directly at disarming minorities.
It is difficult to understand why many of the minority activists these days are advocating for ill-conceived gun control measures.
“Directly” is an inaccurate characterization. The Mulford Act applied to everyone in California. It’s true that ut was in response to armed and menacing Black Panthers “protesting” on the steps of the California Capitol building. The law went too far in banning carry, not just being armed at the Capitol, but so did the protest that inspired it.
Your comment is purposefully inaccurate just to smear Reagan. It is also deafeningly silent on the ongoing and massive further firearms freedom infringements piled up on everyone, including Blacks, by Democrats in the decades since.
“It’s true that ut was in response to armed and menacing Black Panthers “protesting” on the steps of the California Capitol building.“
I’m glad you agree with me.
So just how did the black panthers’ armed protest differ from the recent armed protest at the Michigan State Capitol?
And Reagan doesn’t need my help smearing his name, his traitorous actions in supplying millions of dollars of modern weapons to the Muslim fundamentalists in Iran is more than sufficient.
Miner49er: So just how did the black panthers’ armed protest differ from the recent armed protest at the Michigan State Capitol?
The Black Panthers were a gang of murderers. Apart from that difference, I guess the two are pretty similar, and we should regard armed demonstrations by either group with equal concern (if we’re insane).
@chedolf: “The Black Panthers were a gang of murderers.”
I wish I had more clarity on this. To be sure, there were some murderers among the Black Panthers. Yet I have read that they were remarkably well-disciplined for a gang – including many criminals.
The question is, were they disciplined enough? Was their marketing and imaging optimal? Probably not.
Suppose they had been alter boys or Eagle Scouts. Yet, still Black. Remember, this was in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement era where MLK was just barely keeping a lid on violent acts. It was not yet clear that we would complete the transition to Civil Rights without an insurrection.
It MIGHT be that the Black Panthers deserve a LITTLE more credit for keeping most of their arms-carrying peaceful. Where they clearly failed is in over-running the amount of slack the public was willing to give their grievances at that time.
Suppose they had been alter boys or Eagle Scouts.
But they were not…
In October of 1966, in Oakland California, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale used Marxist ideology for the party platform.
chedolf: The Black Panthers were a gang of murderers.
MarkPA: I have read that they were remarkably well-disciplined for a gang…
So well-disciplined that when they raped and murdered their bookkeeper, no one snitched.
MarkPA: I wish I had more clarity on this.
No you don’t. If you did, you’d have read the linked article, and you’d be familiar with David Horowitz‘ account of the events. He was a leftist ally and friend of Black Panther founder Huey Newton back then, and recommended the bookkeeper to the BPP.
@ chedolf: Your points are very well taken. I don’t regard myself as well-enough informed about the Black Panthers.
I think there are two distinct questions arising out of the Black Panthers.
First, were their members often (though not necessarily universally) violent criminals? It seems clear that plenty were. There might have been one or a few members who were not.
We don’t have a perfect, nor even a great, system for dealing with an association of mixed members: some who can be convicted for their respective crimes; others who can’t be so convicted. We have to be careful about the right to associate with others even if they might be guilty of criminal acts.
Yes, we would have liked to wipe-out all the Communists in the US long ago. Yet, had we done that we would face the karma. Today, the Democrats would use such power to round-up conservative Republicans branding them conspirators in white supremacy.
The second question is whether the Black Panthers got too far ahead of themselves with their optics, marketing, public-opinion influencing? This is the really interesting question to discuss on TTAG.
We want to learn from their mistakes. Do the optics of what we do today work for us or against us?
They made the mistake – in that time and in that place – of appearing armed as a company of ALL young Black men. And, at an acutely sensitive place where they should have expected a bad reaction not a sympathetic audience.
That could be a mistake today in many places. It could equally be a mistake for ALL young white men to gather in arms.
Our optics would be optimized by being inclusive in any arms-related assembly. Strive to get as many elderly and females as possible. Bring young children. Include as many races as possible. Include Democrats and Libertarians.
Strive to weed out, or at least corral, any identifiable Prohibited-Persons or trouble-makers.
to Jonathan-Houston
Like all gun control. It’s enforced based on race or skin color. I watched white men be allowed to open carry long guns, patrolling their neighborhoods, in Sacramento county CA. All during the East Area Rapists attacks in 1979. That guy raped over 40 women and murdered 12 people. I watched as the white men of the Jewish Defense League were allowed to open carry Thompson sub machine guns, in Los Angeles.
Gun control is and has always been about controlling black people. All others are just collateral damage to those who support gun control. If you move out of a democrat controlled area, you get your rights back.
It’s republicans who are proposing and passing constitutional or permit less carry at the state level. Especially in former slave states like Mississippi and Kentucky. Now both are “Free states”.
“Governor signs permit-less carry bill – again – at Beretta plant”
https://tennesseelookout.com/2021/06/02/governor-signs-permit-less-carry-bill-again-at-beretta-plant/
At the time the Black Panthers were formed, it was in response among other purposes, to a spate of killing of black men by the Oakland P.D. You must remember this was the era of the Blue Wall. It was the era of throw down guns. While many of the deaths were righteous shoots where the deceased had drawn a weapon on a cop or cops, many of the shootings were blatant out and out murder by the cops. Perhaps some of the incidents were where the black man thought he would be shot anyway, whether he was holding a weapon or not. The Panthers really did have a legitimate beef with the Oakland P.D. of that era.
The legislators shat in their panties when they saw the Panthers outside the capitol building. The legislation was passed as emergency legislation which is supposed to only be enacted for measures to protect the health and welfare of the People of California. There is nothing in the emergency legislation that allows such for frightened legislators.
In any event, whether it was legitimate legislation or not, historically since then California has led the nation in ill-considered laws which do nothing to with crime and everything to do with making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
You have to remember that the legislature can override a veto. There were enough quivering legislators hiding in their offices that had Reagan vetoed the bill his veto would have been easily overridden. Should he have performed a useless act? Folks who have nothing better to do can argue whether a symbolic but useless act should be performed.
MarkPA: Thank you for a cogent and intelligent post.
“The legislators shat in their panties when they saw the Panthers outside the capitol building. The legislation was passed as emergency legislation which is supposed to only be enacted for measures to protect the health and welfare of the People of California.“
And the bill that was passed by the California legislature had zero effect until Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
MarkPA: Your points are very well taken. I don’t regard myself as well-enough informed about the Black Panthers.
You are too polite and self-effacing for comment slap fights. To borrow from Sicario: “You will not survive here. You are not a troll. And this is a land of trolls now.”
Would probably be interesting to talk with you about all this in person over some beers.
Chris T in KY: Like all gun control, it’s always been about controlling black people.
Why do conservatives tell themsleves this absurd lie? Have you been so brainwashed by leftists that you think opposition to gun control must be expressed as a form of anti-racism to be morally respectable?
The current push to restrict and seize guns is entirely about disarming ordinary white conservative gun owners in flyover country because the left is terrified of a potential insurrection. That is why they focus on semi-auto rifles, which are rarely used in crimes. That is why the Biden administration and its allies spread the lie that “white supremacists are the most persistent, lethal threat in America.” Democrats (and some establishment GOPs) want to make sure the Kulaks can’t defend themselves or control their political destiny.
It’s amazing that leftists can directly tell us, “hey, you white conservatives are the enemy,” and white conservatives will respond by moaning that blacks are the real target. If you can’t stand up for yourself when directly threatened by people who mean to harm you, then you probably deserve to lose.
Cheeto, I clicked on your “gang of murderers” link regarding the black panthers and found an opinion piece from of all people, my favorite atheist, Christopher Hitchens.
“CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS IS A COLUMNIST FOR VANITY FAIR, VISITING PROFESSOR OF LIBERAL STUDIES AT THE NEW SCHOOL IN NEW YORK AND THE AUTHOR OF NUMEROUS BOOKS, INCLUDING “WHY ORWELL MATTERS.”
And it is an opinion piece, with zero factual citations.
I thought you were going to support your assertion that the Black Panthers were a gang of murderers by providing actual citations of murders committed by the members, instead I get an atheist opinion piece, how interesting.
the author is a fool or she is insane !
Regardless of how one feels about Reagan, he violated the Rights of -everyone- in the state, based on racism.
That’s not a good look on ANYONE.
So fu**in tired of EVERYTHING IS “RACIST”!
Who isn’t? Problem is you take a nap and you’ll wake up to see where some sneaky history rewrite democRat stamped “Racist” on your forehead…which is exactly what the author of this topic tried to do.
Historically, ‘gun control’ IS entirely racist.
Yet it’s the one type of racism Dems/Progs/Marxists publically accept, demand and praise….
Weird, right?
Once again, Minor IQ shows his @$$.
1. Ronald Reagan was not in the CA Legislature; we was governor. He didn’t pass the damn bill, he merely signed it (but he DID do that, and I disagree with that action the the CA Legislature, and he should have vetoed it);
2. Gee, Blacks had never been disarmed or denied access to arms prior to that???? That news is going to surprise the hell out of many Blacks that experienced “Jim Crow” gun control? Y’all SURE about your assertions, MinorAnnoyance?;
3. Not to suggest that all Republicans are good on 2A issues (they aren’t), but please explain why the membership of the various “gun control” groups trends Dimocrat, and membership of the pro-2A groups trends Republican/conservative?
Or just admit your pulling “facts” outta your arse, as usual.
“he merely signed it”
Merely?
The bill required the collective action of the legislature to approve and send it to the governor’s desk where one man could’ve vetoed it but instead chose to sign the bill and make it the law of the State of California.
You have made thoughtful comments.
We need to be careful in projecting our current sentiments (about anything) back to an age a couple generations or more earlier. What we see so clearly today is not what they saw. Nor will it be what our great grandchildren will see when they read our remarks in the archives of the internet.
Recall when the NRA`34 was passed. In the depths of the depression, in the wake of the violence of Prohibition. No one gave a hoot about machineguns or silencers. Why should they have cared? There wasn’t even much sentiment in favor of handguns. All anyone – at that time – cared about was rifles and shotguns and NFA’34 didn’t touch them. There wasn’t much practical use for a SBS or SBR.
Handgun popularity didn’t begin to grow until – maybe – around 1970. We might have been very lucky that Congress didn’t do much to suppress handgun ownership in either 1934 or 1968.
Today we are vastly more aware of incursions on gun rights and much more sensitive to even the slightest nipping; e.g., bump-stocks and handgun braces. We are (justifiably) fearful that if we let them take an inch they will surely be back for a mile tomorrow.
Today we have the internet and boards (thank you TTAG) where we can meet to discuss gun rights and gun control. We have a much better chance of communicating issues, raising consciousness and building solidarity. That wasn’t possible prior to 1990 or 2000.
Our goal today is to widen our appeal. We have to break the stereotype that we are extras on Duck Dynasty or white supremacists.
Do we want to repeat the mistakes of the Black Panthers? Marching armed inside the capital of California was a bridge too far. Marching around outside the capital of Virginia was well received.
We should be always asking ourselves whether what we are doing individually and what others are doing is doing more harm-than-good or vice versa.
Jeez, Minor IQ, how do you manage to “argue” when squirrels are around??? Reagan didn’t author the bill. He sorta, kinda supported it. He signed it (when the margin of passage in BOTH CA houses was more than sufficient to override a veto, had he been so bold).
Do I disagee with this signing the bill??? I already said that, unequivocally, above. I think it was an excellent opportunity for a ‘principled’ veto (that would have been overridden), and I wish he had done it.
I do NOT believe, nor have I ever argued, that either DJT or Ronnie were 2A stalwarts. But the whole “Ronald Reagan LED a bipartisan . . . ” assertion is just BS, of the purest ray serene. Look up the list of Dim sponsors and supporters, and give me a quick count of how many you have SUBSEQUENTLY supported. Or just go back to the basement; your mom has your pudding cup ready.
minor49IQ…Since you are outraged over Reagan you must be fit to tied over the let-bin laden-skate rapist bill clintoon and the kill your parents communist-terrorist bill ayers’ prodigy b.h. obama and all the election fraud biden family collusion and the entire despicable racist history of the dempcRat Party. If not…gfy hypocrite.
This idiot doesn’t care at all, he’s just trying to get a rise out of people.
Clinton’s) Rapist-killers in it for the money
Obama’s) Incompetent sissy’s in it for the money.
Biden’s) Criminals and election fixers in it for the money.
All leftist scum with one thing in common but different paths.
Nah Deb, as a leftist I have no morals…none…not even a little.
And as an a-hole provocateur I will take a single fact, and ignore all other facts.
Together it allows me to be the biggest ass-clown I can be!
Fascinating.
Gosh, Minor IQ, even you are apparently capable of a semblance of truth – or was it accidental. Your list omitted, “and I regularly crap out tortured, ahistorical, ungrammatical, illogical ‘interpretations’ of our founding documents, that have never even been ARGUED in a Court of Appeals or SCOTUS”
Other than that, you pretty much nailed it.
Miner – still a dumb a troll as ever
to Miner49er
I’m not concerned about the dead white males who passed gun control. I’m concerned about the white “happy fascists”, who have openly supported the Mulford Act. And these same “happy fascists” have proposed, written, and passed gun control themselves. These racist white “happy fascists” have their “pink boot” on the necks of blacks in democrat controlled areas.
“Ammiano was instrumental in getting rid of San Francisco’s High School competitive .22 cal rifle teams, and worked to put an end to the junior ROTC program in San Francisco’s High Schools. Ammiano supported the ban on allowing gun owners to carry an unloaded gun in public. “Whether a gun is loaded or not, it’s still an act of intimidation and bullying,” Ammiano said.
https://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/29/anti-gun-lawmakers-lead-hearing-today/
Tom Ammiano is a terrified, racist white “happy” man, who wanted to stop inner city black kids from learning about their god given and birth rights as American citizens. Ammiano pubicly embraced the racist Mulford Act. He is now the public face of racist gun control in California. The “pink hand” is almost always a racists hand.
“Ammiano pubicly embraced the racist Mulford Act.“
Oh my gosh, he’s almost as bad as Ronald Reagan, who actually SIGNED the Mulford Act and made it LAW.
You people are hilarious.
Actually, it was the NRA and gun control..
ACTUALLY, it was the NRA that endeavored to arm blacks and train them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves and their families against the night riders and the Klan… Don’t understand history? Don’t try to change it…
I would like to know more about the early history of the NRA training blacks or other minorities to protect themselves from the KKK.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-founded-protect-black-people-kkk/
Snopes is a fake news website.
That’s cute. The Snopes link merely debates whether the NRA was formed to protect the rights of blacks. It says noting about the origin of gun control laws in the US. Here’s a long list, that’s actually relevant to this discussion, of racist gun control laws that were passed explicitly to prevent free blacks from owning guns.
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control-2.pdf
It is undeniable that gun control laws, like poll taxes and marriage laws, were originally about restricting the rights of free blacks. If we’re all supposed to believe that the confederate flag is inherently racist because some confederates were racists, then all gun control laws must also be deemed inherently racists. You leftist clowns made the new rules. Now enjoy them.
I would still would like to know more about the early history of the NRA training blacks or other minorities to protect themselves from the KKK.
Perhaps you can Google it or try your local library?
Snopes is complete bullshit, it’s funded by left wing loonies.
They even claim Biden won in 2020. Too funny.
I think your inquiry is worthy. I wish I could make a contribution.
It is often difficult to discover the real motivations for historical acts, such as legislation. The announced rational may be true, only partially true or outright false. There is usually some unstated motivation. Teasing the evidence out of the historical record is a task for only a few such as Clayton Cramer.
It is entirely plausible that the NRA’s founders’ primary motivation was to build marksmanship skills for military purposes. And yet, they could have held secondary objectives. E.g., to build marksmanship skills in freedmen so that they could better hunt for subsistence. Or, for self-defense.
We might get hints that would support/refute such secondary motivations. If they proselytized in Southern rural precincts recruiting freedmen that would be supporting evidence. If they avoided training freedmen and concentrated on recruiting Northern city-dwellers that would undermine the conjecture.
Fact check this D June 9, 2021 At 10:11 says “Snopes is a fake news website.”
AND?
You have a point there D?
“Perhaps you can Google it or try your local library?“
So no info about the claim? OK got it.
And thanks to the fake Miner above, what fake news in the Snopes link?
“I would like to know more about the early history of the NRA training blacks or other minorities to protect themselves from the KKK.”
To which I replied “Perhaps you can Google it or try your local library?”
That is a perfectly acceptable response.
You are ignorant of the facts. They should show up in a Google search. If not the local library has books that will likely answer your question.
Snopes is not a reliable source and either is Wikipedia.
If you spent less time trolling and more time learning then in time you would have knowledge. For now you are just stupid, life isn’t an open book test.
Don’t expect others to do your homework.
@Rob S: “That is a perfectly acceptable response.. . . They should show up in a Google search. If not the local library has books that will likely answer your question.”
I’m not entirely convinced of the efficacy of a Google search or libraries. The press at the time would have concentrated on conveying the orthodox message; which – at that time – would be that of the California establishment and legislators. Likely most authors of books at the time; albeit there would be some which were highly supportive of the Black Panthers’ political goals and message but these would tend to white-wash the Panther’s criminal activities.
One might be lucky to find academic papers where the authors dug-into whatever is available and tried to make an objective reading of what they found. As an illustration (merely a token), I’ve crossed paths with a guy who said he had been a body guard to Hugo Chavez during this era. He told me that there were many criminals among the Black Panthers, but not all of them were criminals. Interviewing such people who were well positioned to know but not particularly committed to attacking nor defending the Panthers might tell us something useful.
In any case, in our own thinking, we need to be on-guard against confirmation bias and painting with too broad a brush.
The Panthers were Marxists; while I am anti-Marxist. I’m apt to see in every negative report about the Panthers information that confirms my own bias. It takes a conscious effort to consider the possibility that there might have been a few Panthers who were not criminals and confined their arms-bearing to efforts to rein-in excessive force in police activity.
And conversely, there are Progressives/Leftists who are sympathetic to Marxism and the Panthers’ racial message. These will tend to white-wash all the evidence of Panther arrests, prosecutions and convictions.
Neither side sheds much light; most buries the truth in smoke.
At the library you likely find more then one source, you might even find many books on any particular subject written from different perspectives.
OR
You could read the nonsense that is on Wikipedia. Having been an editor on Wikipedia I can tell you that any dispute ends up in an edit war. Most of these edit wars are nonsensical and you end up with a heavily biased article.
The word smoke does not do these edit wars justice. As an example you have an editor who lives in a London apartment. This editor will insist that they know everything about living in an impoverished area of Chicago and yet they have never left England.
After enough edit wars I quit. I was literally quite sick of gangs of editors who would gang up on other editors about articles that they obviously knew little about. It’s basically a very dirty fight going behind the scenes, sources can be pretty sketchy at times and it is a mob rule mentality.
As for Miner49er I have my own “opinions” about the Black Panthers but he has lost all credibility with me. When he asks for an answer on something 95% of the time he is trolling. If he gets an answer he doesn’t like then deflects to something else or picks one sentence out of four paragraphs and tries to run with that.
I don’t have time for that BS so maybe he should take a trip to the library. With the advent of the internet people forget they exist. A afternoon or evening at the library might shine some light on the subject at hand.
My response to his question was sincere and I don’t feel like typing a half an hour to feed the troll. He will find something to take out of context and run with it. Most people on this forum don’t have time for that nonsense.
Unfortunately for the idiot who pulled that line of crap out their behind the Gun Control military wing of the democRat Party better known as the KKK and the genocidal socialist nazi party or the like had zip, nada nothing to do with the 2A. Otherwise you’d find a single “hint” of racism in the wording of the 2A. It’s not there, not anywhere around it and the wishful thinking of a pos doesn’t cut it.
Perhaps one day Black America will demand the democRat Party pay monetary reparations for the despicable Gun Control that Black Americans were subjected to at the hands of the Jim Crow Gun Control democRat Party.
This is what happens when defense of the 2A is the same old regurgitated crap that gives Gun Control standing when Gun Control deserves as much standing as a noose or a slave shack. So until Gun Owners see Gun Control for what it is the tit for tat with Gun Control will continue and you’ll have more and more Gun Control Zealots reaching into their behinds for something else to feed gullible history illiterate America.
little faith twerp…The NRA stood up for across the board Second Amendment Rights when your democRat Party ancestors were whip crackers and making damned sure no darkies touched firearms…Where the pluck do you think today’s Gun Control Sewage comes from? It’s a democRat Party Family Tradition you pathetic, slanderous, libelous pos.
I still would be interested in learning more about how the NRA specifically protected black and other minorities’ gun rights.
Actual, verifiable facts with a source or citation to underpin their credibility.
You would be if you were telling the truth…but you’re not. Unfortunately, you’re only interested in casting doubt on someone else.
But for people who aren’t lying about wanting to learn something:
So now you know of at least one time when the NRA verifiably helped black people defend themselves against the KKK.
From https://ammo.com/articles/guns-nra-and-american-civil-rights-movement-guide. Wikipedia also covers this in its article on Robert F. Williams.
Ingrid, thank you so much for your link, it is very informative. And I am glad to see the Communists were so heavily involved in promoting Negro firearms ownership in the United States by working in concert with an NRA chapter in the south. Who knew that Fidel Castro and Chairman Mao were supporting an NRA chapter, wow!
From your link:
“Williams was many things, but chief among them was a harbinger of things that would come long after he had fled the United States for what he considered greener pastures in Fidel Castro’s Cuba. He stands across the divide, separating the non-violent, electoral, protest-oriented phase of the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s from the later, more militant and direct-action-oriented phase that would arise in the mid-to-late 1960s as the movement became more frustrated (particularly after the assassination of Martin Luther King).
Born in North Carolina in 1925, Williams’ experience mirrors that of many African-Americans of his generation. He moved to Detroit as part of the Second Great Migration, where he was privy to race rioting over jobs. He served in the then-segregated United States Marine Corps for a year and a half after being drafted in 1944. Upon returning to his North Carolina hometown, Williams found a moribund chapter of the NAACP. With only six members and little opposition, he used his USMC training to commandeer the local branch and turn it in a decidedly more military direction. The local chapter soon had over 200 members under Williams’ leadership. If nothing else, his leadership was effective at building the movement from the ground up.
Black NRA Gun Clubs KKK An early incident is particularly instructive in how effective these new tactics were. The KKK was very active in Monroe, with an estimated 7,500 members in a town of 12,000. After hearing rumors that the Klan intended to attack NAACP chapter Vice President Dr. Albert Perry’s house, Williams and members of the Black Armed Guard surrounded the doctor’s house with sandbags and showed up with rifles. Klansman fired on the house from a moving vehicle and the Guard returned fire. Soon after, the Klan required a special permit from the city’s police chief to meet. One incident of self-defense did more to move the goalposts than all previous legislative pressure had.
Monroe’s Black Armed Guard wasn’t a subsidiary of the Communist Party, nor an independent organization like the Black Panther Party that would use similar tactics of arming their members later. In fact, “Black Armed Guard” was nothing more than a fancy name for an officially chartered National Rifle Association chapter.
His 1962 book, Negroes With Guns, was prophetic for the Black Power movement to come later on in the decade. But Williams is noteworthy for his lack of revolutionary fervor, at least early on. Williams was cautious to always maintain that the Black Armed Guard was not an insurrectionary organization, but one dedicated to providing defense to a group of people who were under attack and lacking in normal legal remedies:
“To us there was no Constitution, no such thing as ‘moral persuasion’ – the only thing left was the bullet…I advocated violent self-defense because I don’t really think you can have a defense against violent racists and against terrorists unless you are prepared to meet violence with violence, and my policy was to meet violence with violence.”
Robert Williams
Williams himself is an odd figure, not easily boxed into conventional political labels. While often lauded, for example in a PBS Independent Lens hagiography, it’s worth noting that Williams spent a number of years operating Radio Free Dixie, a radio station broadcast from Communist Cuba that regularly denounced the American government. He urged black soldiers to revolt during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Williams personally praised the Watts riots in 1966, simultaneously invoking “the spirit of ‘76.” Radio Free Dixie ceased operations in 1965, when Williams relocated to Red China at the personal request of Chairman Mao Zedong (hardly a proponent of freedom).”
Miner “And Reagan doesn’t need my help smearing his name, his traitorous actions in supplying millions of dollars of modern weapons to the Muslim fundamentalists in Iran is more than sufficient.”
If Reagan was “traitorous” for “millions of dollars” to Iran, what do you say about BILLIONS of dollars ($150 to $300 Billion) some in cash (approximately nearly $2 billion) from Obama?
How much blood did Iran spill (and continues to) with the full assistance of Obama?
Miner?
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/285752
Also, Biden’s $90 Billion Bailout to Tehran
Rejoining the Iran deal could undo years of progress in the Middle East.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/28/iran-deal-biden-bailout/
And now we are learning more of Obama’s deceit;
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-may-received-much-33-6-billion-cash-gold-payments-u-s/
“If Reagan was “traitorous” for “millions of dollars” to Iran, what do you say about BILLIONS of dollars ($150 to $300 Billion) some in cash (approximately nearly $2 billion) from Obama?“
Reagan was secretly providing weapons directly to the Muslim fundamentalist s who had attacked our embassy and were holding American hostages for over a year. That is the very definition of treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Obama was carrying out the terms of a settlement between the United States and Iran, we had been holding billions of their dollars, they had sued us in international court and the United States was complying with the terms of the settlement agreement.
You know, just a bit of research would save you from embarrassing yourself in public like this.
“When Iran signed the multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in return for being freed from sanctions, it regained access to its own assets, which had been frozen abroad. There was no $150 billion gift from the U.S. treasury or other countries. Iran was allowed to get its money back.
The $1.8 billion refers to a separate matter, also misstated by the president going back to before the 2016 election.
A payout of roughly that amount did come from the U.S. treasury. It was to pay an old IOU.
In the 1970s, Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. After the nuclear deal, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the matter, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest.
The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later.
In Trump’s telling, one cargo plane with $400 million that was owed to Iran has become “big planes, 757s, Boeing 757s,” loaded with a $1.8 billion giveaway.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama-didnt-give-iran-150-billion-in-cash/
OK you didn’t read a single link I posted, nor did you answer the fundamental question of how much blood did Iran spill (and continues to) with the full assistance of Obama? <—Miner??
Rather you used a discredited and singularly propaganda site to confirm your own deep bias. Then you reposted their agitprop as if you wrote it, with only your snark, as original writing. Very sophomoric Miner.
Factcheck.org (An Orwellian name benefiting their mission) is funded by Annenberg Foundation which has deep ties to George Soros, Bill Ayers, and surprise surprise Barak Obama.
What was really special from that link you posted was that "factcheck" cited 5 sources in that article, two of the sources were from Trump, (because you know TDS and all) and two other sources Factcheck.org cited was ….wait for this…ITSELF!!!
Factcheck.org; We site our own propaganda as a source.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/08/media-biasfact-check-just-another-bogus-leftist-robert-spencer/
As for this piece of total complete bull "Obama was carrying out the terms of a settlement between the United States and Iran, we had been holding billions of their dollars, they had sued us in international court and the United States was complying with the terms of the settlement agreement."
We were not "holding" Iran's money, nor was Obama merely "complying" with a "settlement".
Rather Iran's money was seized in 1979. Why was that Miner? Did it have to due with Iran's seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, which was universally known as the Iran hostage crisis?
That court case was in limbo for over 30 years (and would have continued for another 30 years in limbo), until Obama offered Iran, not the original $400 million, but rather $1.7 billion, cash.
Oh then there is this little nugget; (from the NY Post) 'Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”'….."We currently don’t know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all."
Why? Because "… the (Obama) administration hasn’t disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims."
https://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
So Miner perhaps you should "You know, do just a bit of ACTUAL research (rather than reposting propaganda) that would save you from embarrassing yourself in public like this. Again."
But why would you? For you, a proven deceitful liar, this is just part of the day.
“I provided historical proof from multiple sources that there was an all-black chartered NRA chapter“
No, all you have is third-party hearsay statements that there was a NRA chapter that admitted blacks.
“Historical proof” would be an official NRA citation or link to the original charter, or something more than some authors statement years after the fact.
The NRA has archives of their official acts and documents, it should be a simple matter to prove your claim that the NRA had a specific program of helping blacks protect their gun rights.
You made the claim, so the burden of proof is upon you. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, something besides the statement of an individual who operated a pirate radio station from Havana with the explicit blessing of Fidel Castro.
That is your answer Miner?
.
Your lying house of cards always collapses.
.
You are a joke.
.
.
.
.
.
“an officially chartered National Rifle Association chapter”
So it all hinges on this black armed guards actually being an officially chartered NRA chapter, right?
So now would be the time for an NRA member to chime in with a citation from the actual history of the NRA, providing the details of this NRA chapter known as the black armed guards.
This shouldn’t be a big deal to provide this info, I know there are many NRA members on this list. Is there an online history of the NRA we could consult?
You know, I am quite surprised to learn of this partnership between the Chinese and Cuban communists and the national rifle Association, who knew?
Apparently, there is much precedent for the meetings between the NRA leadership and the Russian ambassador, as well as the NRA leadership trips to Russia in 2015.
I think the term is ‘fellow travelers’…
We both know that’s a load of garbage.
You know, I used to believe many of the same things you seem to believe…but after I started looking outside the “mainstream” box, getting as close to the facts as possible, thinking about what they meant, measuring the claims and actual outcomes of each side against each other, and evaluating my own principles and sense of right and wrong, I changed my mind.
Not coincidentally, the arguments that took place here on TTAG and the information I found here played a large part in that.
So I posted that link not for you — you’re clearly not interested in learning or in thinking outside your adversarial “progressive” box — but for people like me who might be watching. This is a spectator sport, and my purpose is much bigger than simply arguing with you.
So the fact is, you really have no hard evidence that the NRA had any program of specifically helping blacks and other minorities protect their gun rights.
Right, got it. Another empty claim goes down in flames…
Way to move the goalposts.
I provided historical proof from multiple sources that there was an all-black chartered NRA chapter, proving that the NRA helped black people exercise their Second Amendment rights in the early stages of the civil rights movement.
Now you’re bullshitting about communism and demanding “hard proof” that there was a specific program for that sole purpose.
If I went out and found it, you’d just invent another red herring. I’ve already provided you with the truth; I can’t force you to accept it, and I won’t try. This conversation is done.
the idea that the second amendment’s is primarily racist is an aberration…and not its primary purpose…..it may have been used to further that end in the south but it was not the primary intent of the founding fathers….to think otherwise would be a mistake…..
They keep pushing the same false narrative, in hopes that enough dupes will believe it and miss that gun restrictions have a much clearer history of racism.
https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965
Great article, thanks for posting!
I’ve read some of the authors other works, his scholarship is generally very good.
He articulates why I love/hate Patrick Henry so much, great ideas on freedom and liberty but a racist and slaveowner his entire life. He never understood the true nature of human freedom.
I also enjoyed his mention of Bushrod Washington, George Washington’s nephew. An amazing character, also a racist and slave owner. Bushrod’s plantation is still standing, Beautiful example of a colonial plantation, and the set of many scenes in ‘gods and generals’ movie.
Going back in time a bit further during the 15th Century one of the Popes who, at an epoch where Popes and Kings were often one and the same, all issued a Papal Bull (Canon Law of God command decree) to go out and Conquer another country where the people were heathens and enslave them all in servitude.
The Catholic Jesuit priesthood owned slaves and is now pledeing monetary reparations. And even an order of Nuns bought and sold slaves in one of the Eastern States (wonder if their rate of secret interracial births were higher by comparison to other slave owners) and are wailing and praying, now for ‘forgiveness’ and maybe something more tangible in reparations.
It’s just getting too difficult for the Church to keep its past dark secrets hidden anymore with the rise of deep forensic internet research and investigative follow-up verification. But it never really was completely hidden. The Bible itself is replete with records of slavery, child abuse, abortions, and corruption as common as all hell throughout the Church’s history…but back to the point:
Disarmament of anyone you subjugate was always–throughout time–the basic Standard Operational Procedure for any Authoritarian subjugation.
And the Church was always–and in some ways still is–the worst offender and example of this.
And, by the way, I’m not certain anymore if it was changed lately, but as a religious historian, I recall that the Church was Always a proponent and supporter of gun control, by Canon Law. Never mind that their private paramilitary police guard at the Vatican was outfitted, to this day, always was furnished with the best and latest in firearms and related equipment?
Can you provide an example of a single human society that didn’t fight wars? Islam, for instance, was created by a conqueror, and their history is perhaps even more bloody than the Catholic church’s.
There is a different interpretation of the church’s checkered history. It appears to me that part of the human condition is the search for meaning, and all societies worship some type of god. Humans societies also tend to be war-like. It’s possible that the two are casually connected, and not causational all as you implied.
And please note that the correct translation of the 6th commandment is you shall not murder (“shall not shed innocent blood”), which means that even 3000 years ago they understood the difference between a lawful and an unlawful killing. And the church’s “just war theory” is based on work by the ancient Greeks, St Augustine (4th century AD), and St Thomas Aquinas (13th century).
Can you provide an example of a single human society that didn’t fight wars?
SAN MARINO. San Marino has never fought – nor faced – a war, which is interesting, because the tiny country enclaved by Italy was founded in the year 301 AD, making it one of the oldest-existing nation’s in the world.
San Marino? 23.6 square miles total!! Nice factoid, but I don’t really think a landlocked mountain tourist town with no water really disproves my premise.
Bob: You asked this question, “Can you provide an example of a single human society that didn’t fight wars?”
You did not specify location, size or economic position, you asked for an example of a single human society and I gave you one of the oldest human societies on the planet which does exactly fit the parameters of your query… Perhaps next time you DON’T want an answer you should be more specific…
Paul Finkelman is a regular contributor to the Huff Post.
He is also a Canadian “scholar”
Who is this man to give his “opinions” about the USA?
Jews love gun control anyway. That’s not anti Semitic, just a fact. One would think in terms of their own history, the viewpoints would be different, but they’re not. Look at Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumet, Dian Feinstein, etc.
yes pick up your leftist ideas and get the hell out of here ! while your at it, take all the leftist pinko commie liberal progressive’s with you ! molon labe
minor49IQ…Get off your podium and realize the one big bag of poop left from slavery in the US is, “Gun Control.” You and the pos trying to hang the race card around the neck of the 2A and the NRA can put that fact in your dope pipe and smoke it.
“You and the pos trying to hang the race card around the neck of the 2A and the NRA“
I don’t believe I have ever stated that the second amendment was racist.
One reading of the second amendment indicates forming militias was a right available only for “free States”.
And I continue to be interested in learning about the NRA’s efforts to protect gun rights specifically for blacks and other minorities, what do you have on that subject?
Jeebus, Minor IQ, you don’t even TRY to package your BS, do you?
You just “want to know” about the history of militias, black militias, black NRA chapters (and, dufus, in order to BE an chartered NRA chapter, the NRA has to . . . GRANT YOU A CHARTER! (*Is this mic on??? Does Minor have s*** packed in his ears (in addition to those other places)?*)
This link took my approximately 30 seconds to find. That I have researched and know something to be trued, due to that research, does NOT mean that I walk around with a little card of cites to support every bit of factual information I possess. Stop being a lazy POS, in addition to being dense, illogical and fascist, and stir your lazy behind to educate yourself. This link (not great, but a decent starting point) will get you started. Ask that dumbass “question” again (just designed to, as you have demonstrated, give you a single data point to find SOME flaw in, so you can attack THAT data point, and avoid discussing the larger FACT that the NRA has, in fact, been supportive of Black gun ownership, Black firearms training, chartering Black NRA chapters, etc., since BEFORE you racist Leftists tried to filbuster the Civil Rights Act. Now, p*** off and let the adults talk.
https://ammo.com/articles/guns-nra-and-american-civil-rights-movement-guide
No. Just no. The only mention of slavery in the US Constitution is the prohibition on laws to ban slavery for 20 years, or until 1808. It proves that the Founders all knew at the time it was ratified that the proposition that “all men are created equal” placed slavery on the road to extinction. It may well have vanished peacefully if not for the invention of the cotton gin in 1794, which dramatically increased the wealth of southern slaveholding Democrats-part.
And the “3/5 of a person” argument is misguided too. The salves has no rights regardless of how they were counted in the census, so what this did was limit the congressional representation granted to slaveholding Democrat states. It proves that there was an active element among the founders who worked hard to limit the damage of slavery.
“. . . prohibition on laws to ban slavery for 20 years, or until 1808.” That was a prohibition on laws forbidding importation of slaves. Not on banning slavery.
My guess is that slaveholders figured they could live with this because it was a long way into the future and they could probably get by without importing new slaves after that provision sunset.
The Founders knew they had a problem with the slavery issue. They knew they had a lot of other problems as well. Yet the most compelling problem was that the United States as a nation just wasn’t working at all under the Articles of Confederation.
The Founders knew about the fix of creating a central government with provinces. That was politically infeasible. They had a shot at designing a new form of federated government and they took it. Mostly, they did a good job.
Perhaps their worst oversight was the “Hotel California” clause that didn’t exist. Could any state or several leave the Union? That cost us a Civil War that could have been avoided with a Constitutional provision.
In the year 1787 Western nations were not yet at the point where they could easily resolve the slavery controversy. And it wasn’t much of a controversy in America at that time.
Once Jefferson penned the words “all men are created equal”; the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration; and finally the 13 states ratified the Declaration – then, the handwriting was on the wall. It was inevitable that slavery would be abolished; and then racial discrimination would end. It took 85 years to reach the first milestone and another 105 years to reach the second goal. Yet, progress in this direction was inevitable. Many of the Founders probably knew this to be the case.
Article 1 section 9 clause 1 says: “The Migration or Importation of such persons…shall not be prohibited” until 1808. A ban on the migration of slaves across state lines would have severely limited the slave trade. In fact it was the southern Democrats biggest fear in 1860. In the quaint old days of limited government, Lincoln couldn’t simply have outlawed slavery by himself, and there were as yet still not enough votes for a constitutional amendment to ban slavery outright, but because he was the first President “of northern persuasion”, a law to ban interstate trade was likely to be passed, which I believe is why the south seceded BEFORE Lincoln even took office. He had not done, nor pledged to do, anything specific at that point, but the writing was on the wall.
@Bob: I had not thought of “migration” to have contemplated interstate migration. But that’s merely because the possibility didn’t occur to me.
You might very well be aware of the “original understanding” of that word in that context.
There is another possibility. Perhaps there is nothing in the record around the time of ratification of the Constitution that makes clear what “migration” meant. After all, the curious way this provision was phrased, there was nothing to get excited about until the year 1808 approached. Perhaps around 1807 or 1806 Southerners started reading this provision and thought it might be construed – in a back-handed way – to empower Congress to prohibit interstate sale of slaves.
They might have acquiesced to prospect of ending international slave trading but wouldn’t accept restrictions on domestic interstate slave trading.
Now that I think about it more, a really big issue was whether slavery would be forbidden/authorized in territories and eventually in new states. That might have been the acute issue.
Even if we supposed that slave owners could accept the inability to sell slaves across state lines, they knew they were doomed if slaves could not be moved to the territories which would become states. If they lost at least an equal number of slave states as there were free states they would lose control in the Senate and they would be doomed.
And, that’s probably about what happened. They couldn’t stop Congress from passing high tariffs on goods the South imported and that was the end of the road for the South.
So, I think I’m convinced. Even if they couldn’t be certain that “migration” meant interstate domestic transport and sale, they could never be confident that it did NOT mean interstate.
Like many things, “Migration” is open to interpretation. It could mean interstate transit, or voluntary immigration of foreigners (as opposed to the involuntary importation of slaves). But I believe that the secession crisis was sparked by southerners fear that Lincoln and congress would ban the interstate movement of slaves. Why else would they leave before Lincoln even assumed the office?
The 3/5 language was actually a fraud perpetrated by the southern slaveholding states.
The slaves had no rights and certainly could not vote or hold office, yet they were counted towards the representational democracy of electing delegates to the house of representatives.
If non-citizen slaves were counted for purposes of the representational democracy, then clearly non-citizen undocumented aliens should be counted as well, right?
Only if each one is counted as 3/5 of a citizen, with rights curtailed accordingly. If you’re going to go there, Miner, go all the way.
“theroot” Har/snort/laugh.
Where’s Debbie?
“Where’s Debbie?”
Sheesh.
How about letting the exausted woman wake up, rub the sleep out of her eyes, feed her dogs and husband, and I’m quite sure she will resume educating everyone on how gun control is rooted in actual racism, by lint-lickers… 😉
I miss the days when I could crack open a beer, grab some popcorn, and sit back to watch the fireworks between Debbie and Enuf…
Those conversations were like a model rocket with one of its fins slightly misaligned. Lots of energy, but nobody knows where it’s going.
My favorite was stuffing a D engine into a little rocket designed for one of the Shorty A engines.
Ripped the fins off in the first 10 feet off the pad and inscribed giant corkscrew circles across the sky before disappearing into the trees.
I left out I shot it out my ass and it bounced off of my head.
It made me the person I am today.
It barely fit but now I can fit two G engines up there.
Yes it hit the trees and knocked down a bird’s nest full of baby birds. Your irresponsible act and mischief caused death .
Even the NYT calls her on her bullshit: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/books/review/the-second-carol-anderson.html
It’s a good tactic for children and developmentally stunted adults to take a thing you don’t like and wrap it in a veneer that most everyone doesn’t like to sway others to also not like the thing you don’t like.
Trouble with that approach is sooner or later you’re gonna get called out and thankfully for civilizations sake there are still a handful of lefties who are more concerned with scholarship than ideology. For now.
The NY freaking Times? Hardly a “source”?
I don’t think Shire-man meant that the NYT was a reliable source, I think his point was that EVEN a biased source as reliably inaccurate and Leftist as the NY Slimes couldn’t buy her line of BS – altough I’m sure Minor IQ does.
Once upon a time, the only people who were allowed to vote in some states were white men who owned land, and owned guns, and owned slaves. Just to ensure that the number of eligible voters would be limited, these states prohibited the subdivision of land below the minimum plantation allotment of 640 acres.
If Ida B. Wells knew that one of the most dangerous housing projects were named after her,
she would really be bitching up a storm if she were alive.
These were places that the police would not go to.
Too many guns and no moral compasses.
“Progressives (led by Eleanor Roosevelt, who spoke at the opening of a similar project in Detroit) were convinced they were doing African Americans a favor: replacing substandard neighborhoods with safe and sanitary housing that would stay that way.”
It did not.
Debbie’s turn.
My turn.
I’d like to thank the white atheist/progressives who said the black father is not necessary to raise children. The disagreed with the white chrisitans who said he was necessary. The atheist/progressives supported replacing the father with a welfare check. And replaced his guns, with the guns of a big city police department.
So yes, much of the black inner city is crap. And it was designed by the white atheist/ progressives to be that way.
“the white atheist/progressives who said the black father is not necessary to raise children“
I would be interested in reading a source or citation that supports this assertion.
No, you wouldn’t.
They’re saying it now about ALL fathers – https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2006/jul/09/familyandrelationships.features – so why wouldn’t they have been saying it about black fathers back when Johnson’s “Great Society” hit the fan?
Besides, it doesn’t matter much whether any of them said it in so many words, or even whether destroying black families across America was what they intended. The damning fact is that it’s exactly what they DID.
“Besides, it doesn’t matter much whether any of them said it in so many words“
So that’s what it looks like when you’re wrong, interesting.
You just made me laugh.
It seems that far too many are embracing the idea that everything is racist, should consider what they have today in the present. History has come and gone. In the Present citizens can: vote, drive, marry, divorce, own property. buy a gun.
The world will never be perfect, get used to it!
I agree with you. But I do believe in my 2nd Amendment. But I am not racist!!
Because of course she did.
“even if the Second Amendment had been specifically written, . . . to preserve the subjugation of humans, the nation’s sin would have been denying the inalienable right of self-defense to all people.”
That point can be made. The 2A guarantees the natural right to arms ONLY to “the People”. It was drafted at a time when there were still some (probably only a few) Loyalists in the US. I surmise that maintaining the power to dis-arm Loyalists was primary. Indigenous people secondary. Slaves and free Blacks tertiary. Other aliens an afterthought. In any case, non-citizens were carved-out and the sin is that anyone was excluded no matter whom or for what reason.
(It’s very likely that the British BoR was an influential precedent. In that document the right to arms was reserved to “subjects” – citizens in our case – who are Protestant. We would make no religious exclusion. Nevertheless, it was probably a traditional way of thinking that aliens ought not be guaranteed a right to arms.)
Now comes the question of whether We the People care to remedy this exclusion. We would have to actually think about this question. Let’s ASSUME, for purposes of the discussion to follow, that there IS a principled argument to be made for doing so; and, that the practical problems of aliens with a right to arms is discounted.
There appear to be two remedies: First, a Constitutional amendment curing the (perceived) fault where it originates. A long and tedious process which would be difficult to reverse. Second, a Federal law removing the offensive clauses of the Prohibited-Persons classes and extending the privilege of arms keeping and bearing to more classes of aliens; e.g., to Canadians but not to Cubans.
There are PotG with firmly held principles, often self-characterized as Absolutists. With respect, I’ve been known to criticize some of their tactics. But now, I’d like to invite these Absolutists to lead us in a discussion of these two possible remedies; probably the change to Federal law.
Today there are at least 10, probably 20, possibly 30 million illegal aliens living among us. And thousands more crossing our border each month. All of these are both Prohibited-Persons by definition and unable to avail themselves of the privilege of arms under selected visa types which they don’t have. These aliens live in dangerous barrios where gangs such as MS-13 prey upon them with impunity. Even if caught, violent aliens won’t be deported.
Clearly, we would rather Congress remedy their illegal status by normalizing a few and deporting the majority. Yet, clearly, this won’t happen soon. Probably not in our lifetime. We have a perpetual and serious problem of illegal aliens residing among us.
If We, the PotG, are really principled, wouldn’t we advocate for Congress to pass bills to redeem this sin? After supporters of our bill finish their speeches, passionately advocating for this reform, we will, of course, listen to the opposing arguments from gun-controlling Democrats across the isle.
Stock up on popcorn and watch C-SPAN.
I think the authors of the constitution were clear that the people included every human, while certain rights and obligations were according to citizens. The constitution is very clear on the difference, for example, only citizens can become president but the people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
And the militia act in United States code specifically includes non-citizens as members of the militia.
Yeah, and neither point, while pertinent, has any value anymore when ‘They’ got away with castrating your inalienable natural right to self protection with Disarmament Agenda of the NFA and ’68 GCA, especially the part of Permanent gun ownership prohibition after committing a felony, EVEN THOUGH the person has served their punishment and has been assessed and deemed rehabilited and released back to Free Society! One of the greatest below-radar rights violating disarmament ploys of all time. A binary explosive threatening to destroy all 2nd/A rights with just one other component. The simple making of enough target-focused ‘laws’ and gun prohibition fiat mandates to eventually make everybody who might be a potential threat to a Tyrannical Government a criminal, therefore permanantly disarming them! And it’s continuously amazing to me how we still let them get away with this?!
@Miner: “Citizens had special rights such as the ability to vote and the ability to serve in public office, but all the people were granted rights through the BOR.”
We might be closer in viewpoint than I first thought. (And, unfortunately, this topic is not an area I have a lot of expertise on.)
At the time of the founding there was no effective visa or immigration system. You came to the border. You might be inspected, perhaps for health, and then you entered. There was a system of “naturalization” whereby you could acquire citizenship if you were an alien.
My recollection is that there was some notion of residing in the country as an alien but with a manifest intention to become part of the nation. So, a French sailor sojourning in a port would not be considered a member of “the People” while a French immigrant who built a cabin and farmed land would soon be regarded as a member of the People. Someone more expert than I would have to explain this more completely.
Now, suppose I’m approximately correct in the above. We have a problem with the 2A. We have millions – 10 to 30 millions – of aliens living in this country for many years. Some own homes. Some have held long term jobs. They have children who were born here. These – admittedly illegal – aliens have a plausible claim to have manifested their intention to become a part of this nation; and, then, a claim to enjoy rights, privileges and immunities Constitutionally guaranteed to “the People”.
(I do not necessarily conclude that this is so. I certainly am not at the level of conviction. I’m simply pointing out that we have a quantitatively significant problem with people bared – because they are illegal aliens – from exercising the natural right to arms.)
(Some readers will argue that the illegal immigrants have committed a serious crime and must be deported. That resolves the dilemma with illegal aliens and the 2A. But there are still problems with this viewpoint. Lots of these illegal immigrants were young enough when they immigrated that they lack culpability for the crime of illegal immigration. It’s not feasible to prosecute many of them. We are simply NOT going to do so even if a majority of voters elected Congress-critters that would step-up deportation. A second problem is that ordinary Americans are estimated to commit 3 felonies a day! If that is anywhere close to true, then nearly all of us peaceable gun-owners are Felons-in-Possession; we just haven’t been prosecuted yet. Do we really want to advocate that every felony, DV or 2-year misdemeanor be vigorously prosecuted? Gun-controllers will cheerfully undertake a fishing expedition to find every gun-owner’s dis-able-ing crime and prosecute for a plea agreement of conviction with no fine or time served. We will all loose our gun rights. We don’t want to go there.)
This whole line of reasoning is interesting to we, the PotG, solely for the tactic of putting Progressives and Democrats in a corner. Either they agree that there must be a “pathway to arms” for illegal immigrants; or, they are forced to throw their people-of-color constituents (who they want to vote Blue) under the gun-control bus.
I’m not recommending to Progressives/Democrats that they support gun-rights or throw their illegal immigrants under the bus. I AM recommending to PotG that we put the Progressives/Democrats in this corner.
“enjoy rights, privileges and immunities Constitutionally guaranteed to “the People”
Yes, all ‘the people’ within the United States enjoy the rights enumerated in the constitution that are reserved for ‘the people’. It could not be simpler than that.
That is why there’s a clear distinction between a citizen and ‘the people’, in many aspects.
This idea is the underpinning of so-called illegal aliens being allowed to seek an asylum hearing, as ‘people’ they are granted the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
Similarly, the militia act requires that, in addition to citizens of the United States being members of the militia, all those who declare their intention to become citizens are also members of the militia. That clearly includes an asylum seeker who desires to reside in America permanently because of persecution or crime in their native lands.
Obviously, if Congress and the constitution authorize non-citizens to be members of the militia, they have the same rights accorded to the militia under the Second Amendment.
It is a simple as that.
I believe you to be mistaken.
I believe that it was clearly understood that “the People” meant citizens and likely some others who had made some commitment to becoming a part of the body of the people inhabiting our country. At the time of ratification there was no notion of a “green card”; only one of “naturalization”. Still, they did make a decision between an alien who was a long-time inhabitant (though not yet naturalized) vs. a sailor who would only sojourn in a port and then leave.
“I believe that it was clearly understood that “the People” meant citizens and likely some others who had made some commitment to becoming a part of the body of the people inhabiting our country.“
Exactly my point.
Citizens had special rights such as the ability to vote and the ability to serve in public office, but all the people were granted rights through the BOR.
That is clearly the plain language of the constitution.
NO the Dec of Independence was for ALL humans.
The Constitution for ALL AMERICANS (legally and properly citizens). That would exclude “birthrighters”, most of the those given, or sold, phoney citizenship by prog demtards over the last 50yr.
“The Constitution for ALL AMERICANS (legally and properly citizens). That would exclude “birthrighters”, most of the those given, or sold, phoney citizenship“
I would certainly be interested in seeing the language in the constitution that You believe support your assertion.
Are you suggesting that naturalization of individuals into citizenship is unconstitutional?
And what do you mean by “birthrighters”?
I don’t always 100% agree with you, Mark, but I like how you articulate your thoughts and provide thorough opinions.
You are very kind.
I generally echo Haz’s comment, but at this point:
“First, a Constitutional amendment…”
I have to put on the brakes. Man, I don’t know, but are there enough state legislators who are sufficiently conservative and determined, to hold back the flood of leftist crap that will materialize at a Constitutional Convention? Once you unlock the door to that room, all bets are off. Katie, keep the door barred.
I also have my reservations, but my point was that Mark at least provides coherent outlines of his comments, which serves to bring the reader alongside him and understand what he’s saying. Clarity allows for robust discussion, which is vital to progress on any issue.
Sometimes the levity of certain commenters is just what the doctored ordered, and I laugh out loud as I read them (drives my wife nuts). Other times, an adult conversation is the ticket. I’ll take both. 🙂
Do I occasionally inspire a chuckle from you? (Please be generous!)
I mentioned a Constitutional amendment merely for sake of completeness. It’s NOT that I think that this avenue is a particularly attractive solution to the “sin” I’ve identified.
Quite incidentally, I think we should maintain a principle of openness to any proposal of a Constitutional amendment. We wouldn’t be here today if it were not the case that the Founders were open to amending the Articles of Confederation.
If a proposal has any merit it will – eventually – get enough support to justify a broad spread debate. If it never achieves such a level of interest it won’t stand a chance of getting 38 legislatures to ratify.
I think the fears of a Constitutional Convention of the States “running away” is an overblown fear. Such a convention could – of course – run anywhere and as far as they wish. It will take only 13 legislatures to quash their wet dream.
Conversely, our politicians have had 200 years to develop the “science” of republican government to the point that our Federal government doesn’t work very well any more. We stand a much greater risk of the Democrat party “running away” with our Constitution then is represented by 38 legislatures.
Is our faith better vested in the Democrat Party? Or our state legislatures?
Fair points.
As for vesting faith in the state legislatures, ask me again in a few years after the various state sausage machines have worked on their election reform and 2A bratwurst. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and these are a couple of pretty obvious things to sort out.
Racist, Racist, Racist… I am so tired of hearing everything being called racist except those things that ACTUALLY are racist (like BLM, many college professors, most Liberals, elite intellectuals and a handful of rednecks) which has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment… Of course this “lady” can’t be called racist (even though her declaration is racist) because people of color can’t be racist (they say so, it must be true)… The 2nd Amendment does NOT refer to Race, Religion, Sex or purpose… It simply states “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms” not the right of wealthy, WHITE, landed MEN only…
Finally something that is no longer racist… Then: “A no vote on on HR-1 is racist”.. (then Manchin says “I won’t vote for HR-1”) Now: “HR-1 is a matter of National Security”… Ahhh so refreshing… Now that raises the question, when is something a matter of national security AND racist at the same time? Oh yeah, BLM…
Everafang bees wacist dees days
Too stupid to even know she can take full advantage of this RIGHT. Just keep pretending your “empowered” the word used when you have no power. Or actually control the power.
THE 2A IS FOR EVERYONE
Gun Control is racist.
2A is the opposite of that.
This argument ignores the fact that the southern sheriff was a part of the state, gun control laws never apply to agents of the state.
In essence this argument says to allow the oppressor to remain armed, while disarming their victim.
We have a unique opportunity in 2020/2021 to raise consciousness of the cognitive dissonance of our Progressive and Democrat opponents.
You guys say – and doubtlessly believe – that:
– Cops are all you need to protect minorities;
– Cops harass and kill minorities without justification;
– Prisons are filled with young minority males;
– Minority communities suffer disproportionately from violence;
– All guns should be banned;
– A person of color has a right to self-defense even if a felon;
And so you conclude:
– Minority felons in possession should not be punished;
– Peaceable minorities should not have guns.
Your conclusions seem incongruent with your premises. Can you help us to understand how you reconcile them?
America strived to dis-arm Black people for a couple of centuries. It did not work out well for Y’all. Are you sure you want to try this again?
Prisons are filled with the lawless. Not all lawless that SHOULD be in prison are in prison.
Are Blacks disproportionally lawless naturally or trained to be so (nature or nurture)? Thus land in prison.
“Are Blacks disproportionally lawless naturally or trained to be so“
You ignore the third possibility, that blacks are disproportionately prosecuted and sentenced for crimes that are more lightly enforced for white folks.
A good example would be the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine (black folks) as compared to powder cocaine (white folks).
“In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created a disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same harsh penalties for the possession of one amount of crack cocaine and 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. Decades later, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced that disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. While this was a step towards fairness, it still means that people face longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine than for offenses involving the same amount of powder cocaine – two forms of the same drug.”
https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/Crack-Disparity-One-Pager.pdf
Fair point.
There are probably a number of factors that influence the Black/White disparity in arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentencing.
Another is patrolling.
A fisherman goes to fish where he knows he has a high probability of catching a fish.
A cop goes to patrol where he knows he has a high probability of crossing paths with a fugitive or a crime in progress.
A Boston cop is going to patrol the inner city, not Beacon Hill. (Admittedly, this might have changed in 2020/21. Now Boston cops might compete to be posted to Beacon Hill where they won’t likely cross paths with any criminal. Not sure how this improves public safety in either Beacon Hill or the inner city.)
A similar disparity relates to security provisions. Beacon Hill homes have reinforced doors and windows, alarm systems, flood lights, security cameras and watchful neighbors. Inner city residents can’t afford these things. If you are a robber or burglar where will you ply your trade? Where you are more likely to be caught or less likely to be observed?
I agree with your point that we should strive to make laws as objective as we can. It’s hard to know whether cocaine should have a higher penalty than heroin, or vice versa. If substances are in the same family, such as powdered cocaine and crack cocaine or heroin and Fentynol then we can strive to make the penalty based on net potency. (But, frankly, I think we would all be better off if we set a path to eliminate drug prohibitions.)
As to the nature/nurture controversy, I doubt that we will make much more progress in discovering the true proportion.
That said, it would be fruitful to ask what we might be able to do about each aspect.
Can we change the “nature” aspect? We have a Constitutional and principle problem here. If we hold that “all men are created equal” and we eschew the Eugenics movement, then as a matter of public policy our hands are largely tied. Irrespective of whether the nature proportion accounts for 1% or 99% of the phenomena, what should we do about it? What will we do about it? Absent a policy proposition which is politically acceptable (which includes consideration of Constitutionality and ethics), there is no point in investing our energy to understand this aspect of the problem.
It is likely that nurture plays a significant part in explaining criminality. Perhaps not 99%, yet, enough to make it worthwhile searching to understand more and identify policies that would mitigate our nurture problems where we can find them.
As to the “fishing” aspect, I see nothing we ought to do differently. If crime is occurring more-so in minority communities than white communities than we have a duty to put our police resources where they will do the most good in protecting the innocents who need that protection.
Perhaps we should install more video surveillance equipment and upgrade doors and windows at public expense in inner city neighborhoods.
Crime is not cheap. Catching, prosecuting, convicting and incarcerating criminals costs a lot of money. If beefing up security where improvements are needed actually reduces crime then there is a savings of public expenses (mentioned above) as well as financial and personal injury losses by people who can least afford to foot the direct costs of crime.
“If we hold that “all men are created equal” and we eschew the Eugenics movement, then as a matter of public policy our hands are largely tied“
As a society, we should ignore the religious delusionists, and provide free and readily available birth control to anyone, it is a simple as that.
“A good example would be the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine (black folks) as compared to powder cocaine (white folks).”
It was the Clinton administration that signed this racist sentencing process into law. And it was passed by the DEMOCRAT controlled congress. Reseach the death of NBA draft pick, Leonard Kevin Bias. And the resulting aftermath of his death changing the NBA, college sports, and national laws.
Chris, while Bill Clinton certainly has faults, it was Ronald Reagan who signed this in the law:
“In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created a disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same harsh penalties for the possession of one amount of crack cocaine and 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. Decades later, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced that disparity from 100:1 to 18:1.”
“The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was a law pertaining to the War on Drugs passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the then U.S. President Ronald Reagan.”
And the facts of history show that it was Democrat Barack Hussein Obama who acted to reduce this terrible disparity in sentencing:
“The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced that disparity from 100:1 to 18:1“
Thanks, Obama!
Here’s another disparity in the way law-enforcement handles white folks as opposed to minorities.
Here’s where police have cornered a pair of teenagers, who are armed with an AK 47, shotguns etc. and are shooting at the police.
Of course, if the cops have a clear shot at these gangbangers shooting at the officers, they should take it in order to defend their lives and protect the local community, right?
Yet instead, the police say “stand down, we don’t want to shoot any kids… “
If the police had no problem shooting 14 year old Tamir Rice, who was holding no weapon why aren’t they gunning down the 14 year old firing the AK 47 at them, blowing the windshield out of one patrol car?
What could it be?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXhNfbOaDo
“longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine than for offenses involving the same amount of powder cocaine – two forms of the same drug.”
Yes Miner, crack cocaine and powered cocaine are merely “two forms of the same drug.”
Just like a 10 pound house Min Pin is the same dog as a junk yard 85 pound Doberman Pincher…Yeah like no difference at all.
Almost every one of your posts originates from the area of deceit and lies.
police had no problem shooting 14 year old Tamir Rice,
Miner: First of all Tamir Rice was 12, second Tamir Rice was carrying a realistic looking airsoft pistol… But most important Tamir Rice was in Cleveland Ohio… These kids were in Volusia County Fl about 5 miles from my house and the 14 year old girl WAS actually shot three times as she emerged with a shotgun threatening to kill the cops (she survived) the 12 year old boy dropped the AK and surrendered… OBTW: niether child was WHITE… As usual you pick apart a story, make it fit your needs and get it actually LESS than half right… Sheriff Chitwood and his Deputies are to be commended for their remarkable restraint when they would have been absolutely justified in shooting both of these kids… The girl has had over 300 contacts with police and was acting out a scenario from GTA…
“OBTW: niether child was WHITE“
Really? I thought you might say that, that’s why I posted the video.
The video shows the arraignment of the 12-year-old boy, we can all watch it and judge for ourselves.
Tamir Rice had no weapon in his hands.
He was given less than two seconds to comply with shouted commands, and then shot to death, with no weapon whatsoever in his hands.
“The officers reported that, when they arrived at the scene, they both continuously yelled “show me your hands” through the open patrol car window. Loehmann further stated that instead of showing his hands, it appeared as if Rice was trying to draw: “I knew it was a gun and I knew it was coming out.”[11][12][13] The officer shot twice, hitting Rice once in the torso.[4][14] According to Judge Ronald B. Adrine, “…On the video the zone car containing Patrol Officers Loehmann and Garmback is still in the process of stopping when Rice is shot.”[13] Rice died the following day.”
And yet you still ignore the fact that the 14 year old girl WAS shot three times by police (Rice was hit once) at which point the 12 year old boy dropped the AK and surrendered…
Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a Rookie cop in CLEVELAND OHIO… because of bad information… Tamir had been seen pointing a “gun” at other children and the 911 caller reported that he was a juvenile and the gun was probably fake, THAT information was NOT provided to the responders… Prosecutor had video of the boy pulling the “gun” from his waistband several times and pointing it at other kids… The cop was an inexperienced dumbass and the boy was not acting with optimum intellect from the git…
Oh yes, they did indeed wound the 14 year old girl…
After taking gun fire for an hour and a half! Talk about cutting them some slack, compared to as you point out, 12 year old Tamir Rice who was shot in under two seconds without ever discharging around or even holding a weapon in his hand.
“Chitwood said his deputies “took fire” for about 90 minutes, trying to de-escalate the situation, before being forced to return fire.“
(Credit to Sheriff Chitwood, I admire his restraint and leadership)
So let’s do the math, the girl, actually shooting at the LEO’s, wasn’t shot for 90 minutes or over 5000 seconds.
And Tamir, not holding a firearm much less shooting at police officers, was shot in 1.6 seconds.
5000 to 1.
Too bad there was no “de-escalation” for Tamir.
Perhaps if I review the video again, I’ll begin to understand why these kids were treated differently, it’s almost like it’s a double standard…
Chitwood said his deputies “took fire” for about 90 minutes, trying to de-escalate the situation,
THAT is the difference between an inexperienced cop and a team of well trained, disciplined cops… Cleveland Ohio is NOT the Volusia County, FL Sheriffs Office… The skin color of those kids never entered into the equation, but you have an agenda to make everything racial without regard for any external influences… You can go back to your race baiting bullshit now… As usual you let your need to post half truths laced with racial innuendo has over ridden any scintilla of original thought or common sense that you might be capable of and I am finished with this senseless back and forth… I really can’t believe I let you draw me in on this “apples vs oranges” crap…
“All guns should be banned“
I know of no Democrats who hold this viewpoint but I am sure you could find some extremists who would claim this position.
I can tell you in my state of WV, the vast majority of Democrats believe in private firearms ownership.
Miner49er deceits and lies. ‘“All guns should be banned“ I know of no Democrats who hold this viewpoint’
Really? Did you “know of” Supreme Court Judge John Paul Stevens? Steven called for the full repeal of the Second Amendment.
Do you “know of” Rolling Stone Magazine? https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-95622/
How about the Democrats mothership; Do you “know of” the New York Times? Opinion Repeal the Second Amendment – The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
However, at least you agree that Democrats on the Supreme Court and at the NY Times are “extremists”.
You edited my comment and then quoted a sentence fragment, my full statement was:
“I know of no Democrats who hold this viewpoint but I am sure you could find some extremists who would claim this position.“
Your examples don’t support your position either. The ‘repeal the Second Amendment article’ is by Bret Stephens, not “Democratic leadership” as you falsely claim:
“How about the Democrats mothership; Do you “know of” the New York Times? Opinion Repeal the Second Amendment – The New York Times”
No, the author is a Pulitzer Prize winning conservative journalist, who as far as I can tell has never held public office.
“Bret Louis Stephens is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American conservative journalist, editor, and columnist. He began working as an opinion columnist for The New York Times in April 2017 and as a senior contributor to NBC News in June 2017“
in any case your premise is wrong, if Justice Stevens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, that still doesn’t “ban guns”.
Sadly, you stoop to complete falsehood when you claim that justice John Paul Stevens was a “Democrat on the Supreme Court”:
“Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who died at the age of 99 on Tuesday, was a Republican appointed by President Gerald Ford. But Stevens took a position that would make even many liberals blush: He called for repealing the Second Amendment.“
So it seems, your problem is extremist Republicans, how ironic.
So, Minor IQ, since overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT “ban abortions”, you’d be all ticky boo with getting rid of that embarrassing hash of poorly-written, poorly-articulated, poorly-“reasoned” word vomit, I take it?????
Your mental/moral/rhetorical gymnastics to try to maintain your narrative would be dizzying . . . if any of us paid attention. As I’ve said before, a cold drink and a new thought would kill you stone dead.
Lamprey, our friend TEO got it completely wrong, even going so far as to state that justice John Paul Stevens was a Democrat.
And all you have is empty personal attacks, sad.
Much mention of the Winchester rifle. A very advanced firegunm for its time. I would say equivalent to the AR of today.
That’s something to think about.
The media did not go after Winchester nor did Attorney General’s try to sue Winchester out of existence.
Wise Marsupial,
And the “Brown Bess” was the AR-15, or even M4, of its time. That whole “The 2A only protects muskets is so stupid even Minor IQ hasn’t “gone there” (at least that I know of). Imagine that, an argument too stupid for Minor?!?!?!?!
An M4 is not, in any way, a “cutting edge” weapon. There are project guns, test bed guns, and even guns actually BEING evaluated by our and other militaries that are as advanced from the AR-15 as the AR-15 is from the Winchester. And the Founding Fathers were VERY well acquainted with repeating and even semi-automatic weapons. And all of that is IRRELEVANT, because the 2A was expressly DESIGNED to protect the access of the militia (i.e., the people) to arms sufficient to confront a standing army. The whole argument gives me indigestion.
After reading the other comments, I hesitate to make one but here are a few short points:
1- The NRA was formed in tandem with the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice which also formed the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The reason was the appalling performance of Union troops during the Civil War and the idea that the U.S. could not afford a large standing army and our founding fathers feared a standing army as a threat to our Republic form of government.
2 – The NRA supported marksmanship training with the hopes that civilians trained in marksmanship would be able to fill an army quickly in time of war. to prevent the carnage of the Civil War. Further, the NRA has always recognized that criminals don’t wait for the police to come to the rescue.
3 – As for slave suppression, that was not part of the NRA DNA (founded after the abolition of slavery) but with the founders of the NRA being part of the leadership of the UNION army, I’m sure that with the atrocities of the post Civil War reconstruction they expected that this individual freedom would be used to stop the KKK.
4 – Media has a lot to do with minorities believing that all GUNS are illegal to this day. Every city with strict gun control laws has much higher violent crime then those with less restrictive gun laws. The NRA provides firearms safety training and its open to all.
5 – We have laws that govern the legal use of firearms and we have restrictions on who may legally own a firearm. More laws, especially when current laws are not enforced, don’t work. The anti-gun groups have ONLY ONE LOGICAL agenda and that is the disarming of all civilians. I recently pointed out that even with a CIVIL WAR musket a trained shooter can shoot 3 accurate shots in a minute.
6 – The second amendment may have helped southern militias chase down runaway slaves, but it’s primary purpose was to arm the population for both an individual and collective defense without the need for a standing army. Given their fear of a standing army as a threat to our republic. Post slavery, ALL citizens have the right to keep and bare arms and the slavery issue is no longer relivant.
Did she imply the Second Amendment was written after the Civil War?
There was a time ,rather recently, that I thought that we Americans had almost achieved Dr. Kings dream, then Obama happened. the content of his character? God, I hope not.
“I thought that we Americans had almost achieved Dr. Kings dream, then Obama happened. the content of his character?“
Would you be kind enough to articulate your dissatisfaction with Obama’s character?
From a POLICY perspective, which should be our first inflection point with any POTUS, I have a MAJOR problem with Mr. “Pen and Phone” legislating from the White House (and completely ignoring following established procedures that MIGHT have protected PART of his legacy from being eliminated by DJT). It is such a problem, I would even suggest that it rises to the level of a moral issue.
As for his PERSONAL morality, his propensity to lie, as my dear departed mother would have said, when “the truth would serve him better” (and, before you even get started typing, yes, Trump was/is a serial liar, too), certainly impacts on his fitness as POTUS.
What he does in private with choom and Reggie Love is completely his business – I give exactly zero s***s.
I have never read such baldly revisionist history as I have seen here.
It’s amazing that most people, even the “educated” idiots believe this crap.
I could care less about who did what to whom in the past.
There are plenty of grievances I could bring up that happened to me in the past. This is a complete waste of time for me. Who cares, I sure don’t.
The actions of today’s enlightened elites are what is really scary and need to be stopped really soon. If not, then, outside of those lapdogs who kiss the feet of the powerful, (some on this board), we will become the trash heap of history, due to our total lack of interest in physically terminating the problems with extreme prejudice.
I believe it is too late for us.
Conservatives are now reduced to quoting 19th Century radicals to own the libs. I’m looking forward to Harsanyi’s next column where he quotes Karl Marx on abortion
Just as they will call you a homophobe, to try and convince you to give up your 1st amendment rights. They will call you a racist. In order to talk you into giving up your 2nd amendment rights.
This is tactic is not new.
btw
IN 2020 they told religious people to give up their 1st amendment rights because a germ was out to get the American people. But they did said you had a right to protest and burn down cities.
edit
But they did say you had a right to protest and to burn down and loot cities.
Only a person ignorant of history & fact would spout such racist garbage!
Gun Control is all about Racism!
I am totally confused by the title of this article. The leader (title) claims that this author claims the Second Amendment is “racist,” then she/it quotes all kinds of people who say that “black people” need to have guns to defend themselves. – This going back to the end of the Civil War.
When I read the article, it looked to me that the Second Amendment GUARANTEED that EVERYONE had the right to “keep and bear arms,” especially for the purpose of self-defense. The short-comings then, fall on the states and the federal government for not ensuring that this RIGHT is fairly administered across the board. (This also means that this right, guaranteed to all by our Constitution, SHALL NOT BE DENIED!)
So, is this author misinterpreting the Constitution, twisting words to fit her own agenda, OR – am I totally misunderstanding what is being said in her article and in the Constitution itself? [If I am misunderstanding the gist of this article please enlighten me.]
But she does have nice hair.
Yeah,we know………..RAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSTTTTTT!!!!!
Comments are closed.