“It’s irresponsible to white-wash history in the name of freedom and patriotism. The Second Amendment is founded on racism and violence. Americans must cease praising The Second Amendment under the rights of ‘freedom,’ when in reality it is founded in racism and oppression.” – Danielle Ortiz in No one needs an automatic rifle [via depauliaonline.com]
Because slaves are always so well armed, and the white racist Democrats of the old South never used Jim Crow laws to keep blacks “in their place!”
don’t forget California’s open-carry ban prompted by the Black Panthers open carrying in Oakland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
“The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching.”
So a bunch of afro-centric terrorists ruined a good thing for non-crazy people? Imagine my surprise.
No, a bunch of racist democrat (un)law(ful) makers ruined a good thing for everybody in their terrified response to citizens holding the police accountable.
Except for the fact that Mulford was a republican and so was Reagan. And no, exercising ones righta doesn’t ruin things, no matter how much it hurts your feelings, but I’m sure you’ll pull your usual mental gymnastics to justify restrictions on others’ rights.
“accountable” for what? Arresting terrorists?
Welcome, pwrserge. Oh, and special thanks for making us folks who believe in defending the 2nd amendment look like uninformed knee-jerk racists, because THAT doesn’t feed any relevant cultural narrative, does it? 🙂
(Saaaay…you SURE you aren’t an SJW trolling here to make it appear that racism is common among gun owners? Or are you merely a legitimate cretin? Either way…top notch work.)
SMH
As a former resident of California I can tell you the ban on the open carry of loaded weapons did not apply to the white jews or white people in general in California.
The Jewish Defense League openly carried loaded tommy guns in their public demonstrations. I’ve already discussed this on TTAG. I will attach the link.
Right… it’s not like the Black Panthers were a racist communist insurgent group or anything… Riiight…
Another day, another crazed statement by a racially-motivated minority. At this rate, every thing will be declared to be racist by year’s end. If the lady feels so strongly about the matter, she should move to a country which has no Bill of Rights, much less a Second Amendment. I suggest that she look at any African country or Red China for starters. Then, she won’t have to worry about white oppression.
That’s some gold medal mental gymnastics right there. Slavery is freedom and what not.
The Native Americans gave up their guns just look at how awesome it turned out for them.
More recently, the Nikkei gave up the most effective guns for home defense and look what happened to them.
There is no question that the 2A was enacted to protect local militias from being constrained/controlled indirectly by the action (or the inaction) of Congress. And since a principal role of the militia was to squelch slave revolts, there was a significant racial component to them being viewed as essential.
I would ask you to clarify… the 2A was written down long before slave revolts started – so how can you conflate the 2A with stamping out slave revolts? Timelines confused much?
Slave revolts have existed throughout history, just as attempts to conquer people have existed forever. It isn’t necessary to cite specific instances in the Colonies, as the lack of revolts could be interpreted fairly as evidence of the success with which slave owners maintained control over their slaves.
That said, the claim that there is “no question” that militias were used to crush slave revolts, suggesting this was a common occurrence and routine function of the militia, is demonstrably false, you’re right.
Still, there was the occasional insurrection in the Colonies or elsewhere in the New World that would inform people’s thoughts. The 1739 Stono rebellion has been mentioned, but there were subsequent minor uprisings, too, such as in South Carolina in 1740.
The most prominent was the 1733 St. John rebellion in what is now the U.S. Virgin Islands, but what was then the Danish West Indies. As I recall, it consisted of upwards of maybe 200 slaves fighting against their plantation masters. Lasting for months, they actually took control of much of the island, before being crushed by French soldiers (not militia) from nearby St. Martinique.
Final irony about this event is that the rebellious slaves didn’t just want freedom from slavery. They wanted to be the new plantation masters and slave owners, themselves.
That irony highlights a reality which still baffles me. Liberia was populated by freed US slaves empowered to control the country/region. Slavery was, of course, banned from the outset. Nonetheless, slavery became widespread fairly quickly. No white people were involved. Just puzzlement.
Tell me all about the slave revolts prior to 1776 in the majority of the country where slavery wasn’t a thing…
EXPLETIVE DELETED
There was precisely one major slave revolt, the Stono Rebellion in 1739. The second ammendment was written in 1789, fifty years later. Violent slave revolts were exceedingly rare, the most common form of slave “protest” was escape. Slave Patrols were formed to hunt escaped slaves, but these are very different from militias. Tell me again how militias were going around putting down slave revolts all the time.
“The principal goal of the militia was to squelch slave revolts.” 😂😂😂
Wow. My god you leftists get dumber by the day. The militias existed to protect their communities and states from threats like the French, native attack, and internal violence. They existed LONG before institutionalize slavery was ever a thing in the colonies. Yes. The colonies existed before the institution slavery. And that’s something your liberal professors don’t want you to know.
“since a principal role of the militia was to squelch slave revolts” – citation needed, please.
There is also no question it was written to deter tyrannical actions like suppression of voting, illegal impresment (which was going on long before during and after independence), suppression of freedom of assembly, freedom speech, quartering of troops etc.
The claim it was writen for a single purpose is a complete denial of history.
The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments can be said to also help maintain slavery. does that mean supporting them supports racism and slavery?
The American and French Revolutions themselves can can be claimed to be about continuing slavery.
And the British anti slavery acts can be seen as a way to insure huge profits from a gigantic imposition of forced servitude on about 10x more people in India than were slaves in all of the Americas
But some of my guns are black!
But some of my FAVORITE guns are black!
But, I have BLACK guns in my family…
Some of my best friends have black guns!
Once you shoot black you never go back ? Wrong , I like my Walnut .
Noooooo, the 2nd amendment is as neutral as it can possibly be. It’s the laws that restrict the 2nd amendment that are racist.
Absolutely. The term “militia” is entirely color blind and “the right of the people” is as inclusive as it could possibly be.
As usual, it is what people do with the tools allowed to them that is criminal, racist, appropriately defensive, or benign, not the presence of the tools themselves.
The one thing that you overlook is that slaves were not considered “people” but property. It was only because of the white slave owners in the south who recognized that they would have no voting power in the House of Representatives due to the overwhelming population of the north that slaves were specifically included in the Constitution as 3/5 of a person. In Dredd Scott, Justice Taney (a white southern bigot if there ever was one) argued that recognizing the right of escaped slaves to be free would result in them having the same second amendment rights as white people (as I recall….it has been a while), thus reinforcing the then popular conclusion in the south that slaves were not people and not entitled to any of the protections of the Bill of Rights. Not until after the Civil War were blacks, at least on paper, recognized as people. It was only then that racially restrictive gun owning laws were passed, because otherwise the blacks were entitled to arm themselves just as the whites.
I agree that the 2A is race-neutral.
Nevertheless, the history of gun-control has explicit racism written all over it. First, it was “No guns for Indians”. Then, it was “No guns for Negros”. In the 20’th Century, it was “No guns for Italians, Jews, Irish, etc.) Gradually, that became “No guns for anyone who is not a member of the elite”.
Is “No guns for . . . not the elite” truly race-neutral? That’s a hard position to maintain.
Eventually, we had NICS – the hated NICS. Yet, NICS is color-blind (relative to what came before it).
Then came the Shall-Issue reform; followed by the Con-Carry reform. The 7’th Circuit reform in Illinois; the DC Circuit reform in DC v. Wrenn.
Today, the First Lady of Illinois or the US has no greater Right-to-Carry than her chamber-maid. Each is entitled to apply for her CWP and has a right to be issued the same without “good cause”.
The 2A has never been in a less-racist condition since Reconstruction.
Without 2a there would be no America. An attempt at british style gun control was the spark that started this grand experiment.
Notice how the comments section is preemptively locked down by this SJW EXPLETIVE DELETED? This, this is why I think Pinochet did nothing wrong.
The “R” word has lost the vast majority of its punch due to vast and inapplicable over-usage. Pretty much meaningless at present.
“The “R” word has lost the vast majority of its punch due to vast and inapplicable over-usage. Pretty much meaningless at present.”
Damn straight.
And ironies of ironies, it was the Leftist fvckwits that performed the execution…
Aaaanndd comments are closed for that article.
Huh.
Not so, here at TTAG.
Are these not the same people who would refer to the Constitution as a ‘living document’? So couldn’t, by their own logic, the meaning of the Second Amendment grow to include people of all races?
The Second Amendment could not “grow” to include people of all races since it ALWAYS included people of all races and excluded none. Those persons not held as “personal property” of the slave owners, and therefore denied there status as people and relegated to the legal status of cattle, were fully covered by the provisions of the Second amendment, regardless of their ethnicity or the color of their skin. Harriet Tubman, for one, is famous for her arms and willingness to shoot it out with slavers.
cmac890,
Silly man/woman: the virtues that Progressives spout only apply for Progressives.
Freedoms of speech, religion, association, to peaceably assemble, petition government, etc. only apply to Progressives. Their political enemies have no such freedoms.
Similarly, “tolerance” and “open debate” only applies to political enemies of Progressives. Progressives themselves have an obligation to be intolerant and silence their political enemies, for the “good” of our nation of course.
And you probably already knew all of this!
Tell me, back in 1791, how would a policy of disarming all but the official enforcers of the ruling class have been any less racist or oppressive? Need I remind you that this ruling class was exclusively white, and often slave-owning? How would that have been any less a tool of oppression?
And I quote, (emphasis added for effect)”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Reading comprehension time:
What is necessary to ensure the security of a free state? Answer: Militias
Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Answer: The People
Fast forward to present day – Even if the 2A was rooted in racism, (and it isn’t), how is it any less racist to disarm innocent people so they can no longer defend themselves? Blacks are disproportionately victims of violence by members of their own race, how does taking away weapons from the law abiding people make them any safer from the criminals?
Yes, our country was founded on very racist, sexist and elitist principles. Yes, the founding fathers were all assholes by 21st Century values. By accident, or genius, our system of government has proven to be rather resilient and adaptable to a changing world. Our country has evolved along with our changing sense of right-and-wrong. Voting rights for example, once reserved for white male property owners, have expanded. Maybe the answer to ‘racist’ gun rights, as protected by the 2nd Amendment, is to follow historical example and expand those rights to all? Otherwise it would be like the suffragette movement arguing because women can’t vote, nobody should.
Well, I wouldn’t refer to our founders as “assholes,” but otherwise that is well-stated. We now have both Constitutional amendments and subordinate laws in place to guarantee civil rights to everyone. Why anyone would complain about that defies logic.
“Well, I wouldn’t refer to our founders as “assholes,””
A certain English King in the late 1700s might disagree on that.
*snicker*
They managed to finally get over it…
Are you sure about that? I sense a lot of condescension towards Americans in many posts by British writers. And then there was the whole superiority thing of the British and French generals in WWI, and Monty’s insufferable disdain of us and our generals/troops in WWII.
“Are you sure about that?”
You have a point on that one, especially their ‘elites’.
I suppose more accurate to say would be their opinion on us varies with the direction and velocity of the wind.
If it got down to it, their population in general is likely envious of our opportunity and freedom here, and I base that the number of UK folks I have known over the years online who have expressed that to me.
Were they able, they would love to emigrate here, and one fellow I know who got a work visa for the San Jose tech sector ‘disappeared’ over here after his visa expired…
The prevailing train of thought in the U.S. media and college campuses is that anything remotely “connected” with “white” people from ancient Greece until at least two hundred years in the future, is “racist”. And I am not being facetious.
I hate how the left has their assumed trump card-RACISM!! Disagree with me? You raciss’! You’re white? RACISS!!! Police? RACISS! Gun owners? RACISS!!!!!!!
World War 3 might do the world some good if it could cull some of the numbers.
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “They had better do it, and decrease the surplus population…”
“Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.”
“I see a vacant seat,” replied the ghost, “in the poor chimney corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved…”
“No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind spirit! Say he will be spared.”
“If these shadows remain unaltered by the future none other of my race shall find him here. What, then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Scrooge bowed his head.
“Man,” said the ghost, “if man you be in heart, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered what the surplus is, and where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. O God! To hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”
As always the comment for the linked article are closed. These fools know they can’t win in the market place of ideas. Anti gun legislation is based in racism, not the other way around. Whenever we limit a Freedom it is always the result of unsubstantiated fear and rascism.
Maybe they’re afraid to explain how their writer’s proposals of universal background checks and mandatory gun safety classes would have prevented the Las Vegas attack.
The killer there had passed background checks, so that didn’t help. The killer there eventually intentionally killed himself, so he had no interest in gun safety, either.
I quit reading as soon as he quoted a “study” by Mother Jones.
What she really means is:
“White men are racist and sexist, and my bigotry against white men doesn’t make me racist and sexist.”
And yet again we find a subversion of reality the reinforces the necessity for the amendment and the entire Bill of Rights. I can only imagine what would occur if the author of this alternate view might suggest after we all succumb to this new utopia. My guess is free speech. It’s far too dangerous for us poor rabble to use safely.
More Revisionist History idiocy…aka…more lies and propaganda.
The Second Amendment is rooted in the Founders’ belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In order to exercise those rights one must be able to defend oneself against tyranny from any source. Yes, the Founders missed the fact that Black Africans are “men”, but that was rectified as a result of the American Civil War, even though the Democrats denied firearms to the newly freed former Black African Slaves. That, too, has been rectified.
For all Americans the Second Amendment protects their right to resist “racism”, criminal predators and Government Tyranny. We need “automatic rifles” to defend ourselves against fascist liars like Danielle Ortiz.
It would be entirely more accurate to say “all (white) MEN (not women, slaves or Indians) are created equal…” It was basically an insult to the (brutish) British monarchy and noble class, not an affirmation of the rights of those to whom rights had not been extended at the time. Today it is interpreted differently.
Yes. I was not interested in writing a long diatribe about who the Founders were referring to and analyzing whom the Founders thought had rights and who didn’t. Just in making the simple point that rights are not worth anything if you cannot defend yourself and your rights. The Second Amendment never had anything to do with “racism” when the Constitution was written.
Thanks for your comment. You are correct.
Thank you 14A.
State militias, as opposed to private fugitive slave hunters, were not a major anti-slave insurrection force for several reasons. For starters, militias consisted largely, though not exclusively, of local men in the area, many of them being subsistence farmers who owned no slaves. Who has time to deal with a plantation owner’s slaves, when you’re busy trying to feed your own family?
Less proudly, sometimes the militia itself was the troublemaking group and itself needed to be put down! Sometimes, vagrants and driftere were impressed into militia service, rather than have them run around town committing petty crimes. Sometimes, this backfired and the militia became something similar to a gang, with its own laws and rules. These would have to be reined in by the colonial government (British troops). Such ragtag militias wouldn’t be out there fighting nonexistent slave revolts.
Finally, the greatest threat was from Indians and European militaries, which is what the militia were geared toward defending against.
Meh…the USA is a miracle. Compared to the rest of the world it’s worked pretty well for over 200years. THIS is virulent tripe. We fixed most of the “racist” inequities. By blood and law-and if racist gunlaws remain it’s mainly your hero’s the democrats pushing that…
English Law was explicit about the right to self defense and that the militia was the people. The Founders were saying something they already understood and “we” are doing the interpreting.
…….and the Continental Army would have had automatic guns if not for the cost. This technology was a century old.
Antis, stop lying! It goes against your moral do good image.
Great article here:
Ignore the late-night hosts: The left does not care more than the right
http://wapo.st/2gt6ary
“We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created EQUAL, endowed with un-alienable rights” (Declaration of Independence.)
Americans need to quit coddling all of the un-equal MFs out there. At this point, it’s nearly a certainty that they’re NEVER GONNA MAKE IT.
Ortiz, your parents failed you in their teaching or you failed to learn.
HERE’S A LESSON FOR YOU. EQUAL IS “EQUAL”, ANYTHING ELSE, AIN’T. EQUAL DOESN’T NEED TO “ASK FOR EQUALITY” AS “IT CANNOT BE GIVEN OR GRANTED”. [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 109]
IF YOU ARE NOT EQUAL YET, STUPID, YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO BE ! ! !
HURRY UP AND GET-EQUAL BEOTCH. WINDOW’S A CLOSIN’.
I should have realized earlier that DePaul University is in Chicago, it all makes sense now.
Racism is a concept invented by progressives communists in order to demonize their opponents. The only people who aren’t “racist” are idiot whites afraid of being called named by those same progressives.
Just another anti Second Amendment screed by another a liberal communist college student who’s out of touch and confused by the difference between rights and her concept of needs.
First time she gets mugged, her rich elitist disdain for the the rights protected by the Second Amendment will evaporate. She’ll learn that reality is a heard lesson not taught is privileged colleges like DePaul
Who didn’t see this coming? This has been in the pipeline for years. Reacting to this without understanding the bigger picture behind it is useless.
Seriously, RF, where do you _find_ these people? That sounds like the next spokesperson for the little fat guy in North Korea.
One of the reasons the second Amendment came about was the British marched to Lexington and Concord on their way too confiscate the Militias weapons, cannon and powder. {sort of like the Democrats of today only they are worse now more like Benedict Arnold}.
Another trash talking want too be showing his ignorance of our History and Constitutional process! this lame brain would have abolished American Rifles in favor of Muskets because the rifles were too accurate.
you have these Traitors sucking on the teat of Soro’s and Bloomberg selling out for a paycheck! {Democrat Party}
Utopia on earth {Cult of Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito} their terms!
Everything the Lefty’s don’t agree with or don’t like is racist. Everything touched by white men is racist. One gun shoots one minority and all guns are racist. Just more bullshit and noise. I do get tired of footing the bill for it though.
Minorities in urban areas gave up their gun rights and made sure only the police can defend themselves. Judging by the anti-police protests, its working out well.
When there is no valid argument – the left invokes ‘racism’ (again) .. yawn… so… bored…
I was so impressed with Danielle Ortiz’s article that I’m rewarding her with a long weekend in an isolated country house with Harvey Weinstein.
This article was apparently written by a lib/prog brainwashed student and published in the school newspaper of De Paul University of Chicago IL. ‘Nuff said.
The Second Amendment is not racist. Efforts to impose gun control have been.
“The Second Amendment is founded on racism and violence.”
Sorry doll. The Second Amendment is founded on the British attempting to confiscate arms at Lexington and Concord. So, no more “cultural appropriation” please.
Here’s the email I just sent to the opinion editors of the paper, not that I think it will have any effect:
Hello,
I am writing in response to Danielle Ortiz’s piece “No one needs an automatic rifle”. As a DePaul double demon graduate of two separate master’s degree programs, I am very saddened to see such an ill-informed hit piece published with my school’s name attached. While I won’t pick apart all the falsehoods within the document, I will hit some high points.
Many of the suppositions regarding the Second Amendment put forward are flat out incorrect. Hunting deer was never the intention; overthrowing tyrannical government was. If anything should be protected by the Second Amendment, it should be automatic and semi-automatic rifles as in current use by the military. Any cursory study of the founding father’s comments of the time would make this clear. Even a limited knowledge of the timeline of event of our nation’s founding would make this clear.
The supposition that background checks are not in place it completely incorrect. In fact, within Illinois, every single firearms transfer has to be cleared by the Illinois State Police system This check even needs to be done if I were to gift a firearm to my son. Many other states have similar requirements. All dealers, nationally, are required to complete a background check for every transfer. In fact, many gun owners have asked for access to the National Instant Check System (NICS) to perform background checks for person-to-person transfers in states that don’t have that requirement, and it has been law enforcement that has restricted access to that system. Trust me, no gun owner wants to sell to a prohibited person. I would hope that using freshman Ganise Concepcion as a trusted source of quality information was pure folly on Danielle’s part, but I would guess using bias and compromised sources was that best she could do prove forth her predisposed and uninformed conclusion.
The idea that you can get a firearms license online is ludicrous. Again, in Illinois, very deep background research is done on every FOID applicant, even more so for CCL applicants.
The racial context of the Second Amendment is similarly ludicrous. In fact, most of the early gun control laws were enacted with the explicit intention of disarming minorities. In any case, the Second Amendment, clearly states that bearing arms is a right of the people, just like freedom of speech. I’m sorry that Danielle fell for the lie, requiring tortured sentence structure, about militia membership being apropos of anything regarding this right.
Finally, when it comes to lobbyist spending, the NRA isn’t even in the top fifty. Michael Bloomberg in 2015, as an individual, pledged $50 million to promote gun control.
So why hasn’t further gun control passed. The vast majority of the U.S. population doesn’t want more our rights to be watered down even more. Gun control laws have proven to be ineffective and in many cases worsen the loss of life to armed criminals. And, it’s just plain, on the face of it, unconstitutional.
Thank you for making it this far. I know my stance is an unpopular one in the City of Chicago. Fortunately the stand for freedom isn’t ruled by those in ivory towers and highly regulated and sanitized urban lives.
Respectfully yours,
From the article: “No one needs an automatic rifle to hunt deer. To uphold the argument that automatic rifles are necessary for hunting reasons is ignorant and false.”
Who in the world is making this argument? I have heard a few (not too many, but a few) people argue that machine gun regulations should be loosened. Never heard a single one of them claim they need it for hunting. The strawman is strong with this one.
Well, I got a response, and my response to her response follows:
Hi David,
Thanks for reaching out with your concerns.
I can assure you Danielle did do research for her article, mainly citing Mother Jones and an article by Thom Hartmann in Truthout. All quotes included are the opinions of DePaul students.
This is her opinion, which she is entitled to just as you are entitled to yours.
I believe a healthy debate of opinions and speech is what makes this country strong. If you would like your opinion to be heard we are always open to submissions.
Best,
XXXXX
___________________________________________________
Hello XXXXX,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would humbly suggest that Danielle use less bias sources of research in the future. However that is her choice.
I believe you are very correct in your assertion that healthy debate has proven to be a genuine asset to prudent decision making. However, healthy debate, to be successful, must be based upon truth and good faith by the participants. My main issue is not Danielle’s opinion, but that fact that so much of the “statements of fact” within the article were not actually factual. Deflecting these incorrect “statements of fact” by the use of a student quote is improper and in my opinion unethical. This is the very core of the “fake news” complaint leveled at modern media.
I hate to sound so fervent, but truth in media, especially from a respected institution like ours, is the bedrock and insurance of a strong First Amendment. Each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights relies upon the other rights for support. The Second supports the First, The First supports the Eighth, and so on. Seeking to limit one right damages the strength of all the others, and I am always compelled to speak for the security and protection of our freedoms.
Again, thank you for your time and attention. I suspect that any article written in response would not be well received by your general readership, and I can respect your publication’s intent to stay within the good graces of its readers. If I am incorrect in my assumption, I will gladly submit an article presenting a factual case for the other side of the discourse.
Respectfully yours,
“Comments are closed.”
Fucking cowards.
Keep in mind there is still one place in the world where slavery continues to be part of the culture…Africa…Yes it is still practiced there. Except it is called indentured servitude. People will send their children to a village elder or benefactor to pay off a debt owed. This happens in mainly the tribal areas of Africa but yes it still happens. Also remember that slavery was used as a weapon in Africa during the slave trade years. One tribe would capture their rivals and sell them to the slave traders as a way to eliminate them. This is all recorded history if you are willing to spend the time to educate yourself. The new form of slavery against blacks today is the welfare state.
You are very correct. But I call it the Welfare Industrial Complex. It is slavery to the state.
And the “gun free zone” public housing projects are the prisons.
The English bill of rights declared that Catholics now be able to carry arms.
A hundred years before the USA bill of rights.
It would seem the bill of rights is based on the opposite side of reasoning from bigotry.
I’m really glad the few black people who could afford a tommy gun, members of the Deacons For self-defense and Justice, and a few black doctors, where able to use them as a threat or actually shooting one to warn a racist crowd, off of attacking un armed civil rights demonstrators.
I should add they got their Tommy Guns through mail order with direct delivery to their homes. Because it was legal and normal to do so before the 1968 gun control act.
And since no white owned gun store would service them.
The first gun control laws passed in the US were to keep guns out of the hands of black slaves.
You would think that their “community leaders” would remember this, and insist/demand the right to bear arms,
rather than the gun control toilets that places like Chicago have become.
Blinded by a lust for power isn’t just a white mans’ disease…
Comments are closed.