“(O)ne of the great equalizers after the [1863] Emancipation Proclamation was firearm ownership for the blacks.” – NRA lobbyist Scott Myer in NRA: Legal Guns are a ‘Great Equalizer for the Blacks [via newsweek.com]
“(O)ne of the great equalizers after the [1863] Emancipation Proclamation was firearm ownership for the blacks.” – NRA lobbyist Scott Myer in NRA: Legal Guns are a ‘Great Equalizer for the Blacks [via newsweek.com]
Historical facts are always double edged.. how about free guns for African Americans as part of a “great equalization” of America? Using early 1800s logic in the mid 21st century certainly has risk for unintended consequences. I support ree guns for life to all disabled Jewish Native American women.
Not sure I follow your point….where did the “free” part come from? “Right to keep & bear” doesn’t equate to a giveaway.
Personally, I have the same opinion on guns as I do voting. I agree that most everyone HAS the right, doesn’t mean I want them to EXCERCISE it. I’m all for low voter turn-out amongst democrats. Same with gun ownership. I’m very comfortable with “them” (insert idiotic demographic) being willfully unarmed.
He didn’t make his point very well, did he? I get the basics of it, that policies from another era may be inapplicable to modern times. My example: hanging horse thieves or cattle rustlers.
In the 19th century, a horse or cow may have been your entire livelihood. Losing it could mean you don’t plow that field, don’t have milk for your children, lack meat to feed your family, etc. Could be a life or death loss for the victim. Meanwhile, catching such a thief was difficult in those days.
So with so much at stake and so little chance of solving the crime, deterrence had to hinge on severity of punishment (hanging) alone. Today, loss of a unit of livestock, or even a car, doesn’t generally carry that kind of outcome for the victim. There is also a greater chance of catching the thief. So likewise it is no longer a hanging offense for the criminal.
What applied back then, therefore, may no longer apply today. In the case of gun control’s racist roots, though, that’s just as relevant today as in the 19th century. It is entirely appropriate to compare statist ambitions from the 19th century to those of today, because it’s the same motivation presenting as the same public policy then as now.
That’s where his point goes off the rails, without even delving into the silliness of free guns. That part I still don’t get.
I think guns should not be free. But they should come with a fat tax break. After all, you’re a part of the militia and you need to arm and equip yourself.
Stealing a car from a poor family that’s struggling to survive, the working poor at minimum wage working 2 jobs, is alife or death matter. When a family is one check from the streets and the breadwinners only way to get to those jobs is stolen it creates an unbearable burden for some.
The thief should suffer more than just some jail time.
Jwm, that’s why I can’t blame someone for using deadly force to protect “stuff”. I personally would not shoot someone for breaking into my car but I fully support my fellow citizen if he has to, I am blessed to be able to afford insurance.
Big E
For those who have forgotten or they have not heard of this story.
Some people can get “free” shotguns and free training. And the race of the user does not matter. The Armed Citizen Project is worth supporting. Diddo Black Guns Matter. Which has had many white inner city residence attend their classes as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Armed_Citizen_Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocu8vLqzgCc
https://www.infowars.com/armed-citizen-project-encourages-florida-residents-to-pick-up-free-shotguns/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/daniel-zimmerman/armed-citizen-project-giving-guns-to-the-poor/
As a black man who decries affirmative action and government giveaways, I would reject this. However, if I look only at the surface, my response is: if they’re law-abiding citizens, sure. Why not? The majority of black America is being terrorized by the thugs and criminals and being held hostage by liberal politicos who would rather we bleed and die to support their narrative of victimization. The more we disrupt that narrative, the better off we all are, black, white, whatever.
^This
That deafening sound you hear is my applause. Well said.
Well said sir.
If only they would have followed through with Sherman’s 40acres and a mule.
And the mule was young and healthy and the 40 acres suitable for farming.
Still, no mention was made of giving them a plow.
Very well said.
Well and truthfully stated, Jomo!
You sir, win the trophy for best post of the week
+ Eleventy million. Thank you, sir.
neighborhoods rising up against themselves wouldn’t really surprise me.
pretty tough to have to eliminate your own ancestors and descendants to do so.
Charlie Mike Mike
Thank you for coming out to support slavery. The labor to make firearms will be “free”. The materials to build them will be taken by force and delivered to the factory by an unpaid conveyance. So you want free guns???
Your honesty is greatly appreciated.
Some of first modern gun laws were passed to keep firearms out of the hands of freed blacks and poor white people in the south. My favorite poster from the 1960s civil rights movement is Malcolm X with his M1 carbine.
The very last line of the article intrigues me: “Since May 2007, 969 people have died in concealed carry shootings, a figure that gun safety advocates say will only worsen if people are allowed to carry weapons without a permit.” Aside from wondering if it hurts more to be killed in a concealed-carry shooting than in one wherein the gun was exposed for all to see, just what does this odd statistic mean? Does this figure include people who were shot while carrying concealed, shot BY someone carrying concealed, who shot themselves while carrying concealed, or were shot because they WEREN’T carrying concealed? ‘Legal’ CCW, or illegal? Permit or no permit? Justifiably shot, or not?
Furthermore, why so few? Surely, with half-a-billion firearms out there spread out amongst 320 million people (many too young, too old, too feeble, or too Liberal to possess one, I admit), and maybe 30,000 deaths from gunshots including justifiable homicides, suicides, and ‘accidents’ each year, there should be more than a mere 96.9 people per year on average dying with some involvement of a concealed firearm. Frankly, that’s a rather feeble effort, giving us poor US citizens only 0.0000003% chance of dying in any given year from something to do with CCW.
How amazing that just spouting off random statistics with no meaning seems so important to some folks. . . In other news, hippos kill some 2900 people every year–which is only important if you are A/in Africa and B/near water, or frequent a lot of zoos with poor security. Nevertheless, it’s a great statistic, and just as relevant.
Amen, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Statitics themselves aren’t always wrong but they are rarely in context.
Never forget that 86.4% of all quoted statistics were made up on the spot.
76.3% of the country knows that!
Unfortunately 180% of the population votes democrat.
Also, Abraham Lincoln said ” everything on the internet is true.”
“Hillary Clinton has a 98% chance of winning the Presidential election, HURR HURR!!!!1!1!!”
“…figures from the D.C.-based group the Violence Policy Center to demonstrate the dangers of concealed carry. Since May 2007, 969 people have died in concealed carry shootings…”
Wait a minute. Ignoring the fact that this statistic seems patently false at face value, isn’t this the same group that claims “good guy with a gun” never happens?
According to them, unless you’re a LEO or other preferree class member, ifou carry or own (or – soon to come! – even think about owning) a gun, you are by definition a bad guy.
So no, no.contradiction. At least in their minds.
Looks like this was lost when I first posted it, so…
No contradiction – unless you are a LEO or member of another “approved” class, if you carry a gun you are by definition a bad guy.
So no, no contradiction, at least to their minds.
Disarming for “safety” people you want to exploit has a long, broad history … because it works.
Yep. Hitler said that to leave a subject people’s with firearms is laying the ground work of the conqueror’s downfall.
And the NRA doesn’t like to be reminded about their history of supporting gun control.
Yup. NRA fans will say they’re OK now, and we’re supposed to buy that. Even though they like background checks. But gun control used to be racist so it still must be. Factually I think gun control still is racist, but dwelling on the history is a weak position, even if you rub their faces in it modern legislators will just say things have changed.
And racism. And racist gun control.
And Republicans don’t like to be reminded about Ronald Reagan and their collective pants wetting over the Black Panthers and the racist gun control that led to.
Right on! All power tom the people.,
Gun control has been and will continue to be used by totalitarian regimes as a means to repress any group they wish control. From blacks during slavery and a century after they were freed, to Jews in Europe during the early 1900s, to any religious minority in the middle east, those with political power will continue to use gun control as a tool to supress the rights of those they fear and hate.
The Democrats and their anti-gun minions want strong gun control since they view it as a necessary component their permanent take over of the US political system.
I think they enjoy being reminded of it because it’s still the root motivation.
Last night I was thinking, after reading about DW Shultz potentially getting busted for some crazy scheme involving voice changing and solicitation, why is it in this day and age when everything anyone says is stored somewhere for posterity, quadrupaly so for politicians and celebrities, that these morons don’t quit the habitual lying? Surely, being honest and winning support for your sincere positions would be far easier and more rewarding than constantly scamming and lying?
I concluded they do it because they like it. They derive some sadistic pleasure from not just screwing you over but getting you to ask them to screw you over and every time they get caught in a indisputable lie they have a little orgasm of sorts because out there legions of masochists love them for it.
Politics is just emotional S&M for the participants.
Nah, the truth just works against them. They can only go on emotions and lies.
If gun control was spawned (in the US) from racial conflict, then it would follow that our gun laws would be fantastic if we picked our own cotton to start with!
“The democrat roots of gun control”…FIFU.
Democrats: The party of:
* slavery
* secession
* Jim Crow
* lynching
* racial concentration camps
* gun control
You forgot confiscation of private property and the KKK.
Eugenics, segregating the Federal work force, Tammany hall, the Mann act, and The Projects.
1. The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a “safe working environment”.
2. The anti-gun cult literally seethes with racism. I found that the fastest way for a liberal Black man to be subjected to the vilest racial slurs is to refuse to support invidiously racist gun controls when ORDERED to do so by a White anti-gunner.
3. If as anti-gun cultists claim, the 2nd Amendment means something different in the Bronx than in Biloxi, what about the 13th?
Scratch an anti-gunner, find a klansman.
Scratch a klansman, find a democrat. The Klan was composed primarily of Democrats. Democrats today still are the party of racism, bigotry, tyranny and creating victim classes that then are used to grow ever bigger and controlling government, to “solve” the plight of the victim they created in the first place.
To be fair, if any liberal steps out of line on any of the left’s agenda, the reaction usually is pretty severe.
It was when I did, but I just told them to F themselves.
I wouldn’t be a victim for David Duke. Why should I be one for Chuck Schumer?
You shouldn’t be a victim for anyone, no matter how quiet they keep their racism.
Chuck Schumer is scum.
I don’t think they care. Legislators don’t care. They get to say what is or isn’t racist right now, history notwithstanding. The voting public has the attention span of a hamster, they look at politics, find a gratifying narrative in 30 seconds and that is their reality.
Remind people that gun control was racist and you’re a crank, they’ll think you’re racist for talking about it. Because that’s the narrative, we’re not social-justice experts, so when we drudge up old unpleasant history it’s just poor taste.
Typical NRA using it as a talking point. I mean, they might as well, they have the time and hot air and if they say it for 20 years and maybe non gun people will condider it. And they’ve no hip image to lose, so it might as well be them that harp on it. But for now it’s tone-deaf.
Wait a minute. Black legislators all over the country are huge fans of gun control, because “people cannot be trusted.”
So I want to know why they distrust, or even hate, their own people so much. And I also want to know how the same black politicians can disparage their own people while also disparaging anyone who agrees with them but isn’t black.
A lot of the individuals, and this is big government people of all kinds, don’t have a meaningful sense of self-rule, they want to be controled and spoken for. But they want the best deal they can get, and having the controller be someone who looks more like them is a bit more dignified, at first glance.
This quote from a Usenet thread from October of 1992 explains it all.
” Why not take the lead of South Africa? We could institute a pass law system and limit the movements of young Black males. We could make them live in barbed wire enclosed hostels so that the police could better control their movements.
Why not follow THAT example? The next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that that would be unconstitutional and WRONG….
Of course if you DID get your way, and you conferred upon Daryl Gates and Jesse Helms the monopoly on the means of armed force, the above probably WOULD happen.”
Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I sent to Mr. Farago recently. I have shortened it a changed a couple of words, but not many:
“…….(Before the victories of the Civil Rights Movement) ….Civil Rights leaders had armed guards, and they carried guns, not slingshots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
In many pre-1965 black communities, Black men would patrol with guns, fully prepared to defend to the death…. Those communities were almost always much less the victims of those terrorists than the communities that turned the other cheek……”
Finally the NRA is playing the racist gun control card!!!
I’m glad Scott Myer said it. No white gun owner who really supports the RKABA should be afraid to talk about the racist history of gun control in a public forum. You have no reason to fear what an anti-gun, anti-liberty black person says.
Ask them why they believe only white police should have guns? Ask them if they have heard of the Deacon For Defense and Justice??
Or if you really want to make a great sound bite ask them why they don’t trust their fellow law abiding black person??? But they do trust the white police officer????
Comments are closed.