“A House Democrat is pushing a package of gun reforms that a recent poll indicates are popular among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA),” thehill.com reports. “Representative Jim Moran (D-Va.) said the legislation — which comes as a response to last week’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. — will highlight what he calls a disconnect between NRA members and the group’s leaders, who are in near-blanket opposition to tougher gun laws.” There’s the latest strategy from the gun control industry: marginalize the NRA, divide American gun owners and conquer. It’s not a bad plan (for them). But where is it coming from? History is our guide. Let’s start with voting . . .
In the post-Civil War South, various state governments placed “common sense” conditions on voting. A literacy test, for example. What’s wrong with that? Surely any right thinking person agrees that a person who votes should be able to read and write! A literacy test exclude voters who can’t understand the political system. OK, sure, the literacy test included clauses designed to exempt whites. But the idea was sound, right?
By the same token, why not require that voters pay a tax? A poll tax ensures that they’re economic “stake holders.” I mean, should someone who can’t pay a nominal tax get to decide how taxpayers’ money is spent? Obviously not!
Equally obvious: these laws disenfranchised African Americans. Literacy tests and poll taxes throughout the South infringed upon their right to vote. Oh wait. African Americans didn’t have a right to vote. Not until the 15th Amendment, passed in 1870. Only fully realized by the Voting Rights Act, signed into law in 1965.
On the other hand, all Americans have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Have done since 1789. And guess what? As the Supreme Court’s recent McDonald decision pointed out (numerous times), American gun control laws were the firearms equivalent of the literacy test and poll tax: specifically created and designed by southerners to subjugate African Americans.
Modern gun control laws continue this racist legacy through various tests (e.g., concealed carry applications), taxes and restrictions on firearms ownership. And the vast majority of the cities and states that violate the Second Amendment’s prohibition against laws that infringe upon Americans’ right to keep and bear arms have a high concentration of minority citizens.
You want to see gun control in action? Go to New York City. Los Angeles. Chicago. Boston. Camden. And New Haven, Connecticut. The Nutmeg State’s second largest city (New England’s sixth) is 35.4 percent African American.
New Haven is 31 miles from Newtown, Connecticut as the crow flies. More to the point, Newtown Connecticut is just off of Interstate 84. It’s a direct shot to Stamford Connecticut, where 13.2 percent of the population is black. In Newtown itself, 1.75 percent of their population is African American.
At this point, I feel obliged to say that no child deserves to be shot. The blame for the unconscionable slaughter of 20 children at Newton Elementary School lies squarely on the shoulders of Adam Lanza.
But it’s also true that the gun control laws that make it difficult if not impossible for an ordinary citizen in Connecticut to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, the laws that (at least theoretically) left Sandy Hook Elementary School teachers and staff defenseless against a murderous madman, are rooted in racism.
Connecticut, the Constitution State, a state with a long and noble history of firearms manufacture, passed 2A-subverting gun control legislation to disarm their African American population. It may not be quite that blantant, but it’s true. Connecticut’s gun control laws were designed to protect the white public from black criminals.
So how’d that work out? It depends on where you live.
If you live in one of the Connecticut’s minority communities, not so well. According to stats compiled by neighborhoodscout.com, your chances of being a crime victim in New Haven are one in 74. That’s 13.53 crimes per 1000 residents, with 1753 violent crimes last year.
If you live in Newtown, Connecticut the chance of being a victim of crime is one in 2141. That’s .47 crimes per 1000 residents, with 13 violent crimes last year.
Make no mistake: there is a direct connection between violent crime and gun ownership, or lack thereof. You can argue against it all you like, but John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime is the definitive study on the subject. Its findings couldn’t be more clear: crime is lower where guns are more prevalent.
The hidden truth: states without significant firearms ownership have crime rates that are relatively the same as crime rates as those of states with high gun ownership rates—outside urban areas. The people who suffer most from gun control live in the cities. Within minority communities. Away from the white population.
In short, gun control was, is and always will be a racist policy. It is, in fact, a form of segregation.
The spree killing-related gun control legislation coming down the pike in Connecticut is only possible because of the state’s racist legacy of gun control. While the death of 20 children is horrific beyond imagination, it should be seen in the context of the suffering of Connecticut’s minority communities, who are personally defenseless against the criminals in their midst.
In states which haven’t violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, where the government respects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, assault weapons and “high capacity” magazine bans are politically impossible.
Strangely (or not), the same Southern states whose racism gave birth to gun control are now bastions of gun rights. They’ve moved on. It’s time for northern liberal-minded states to do the same. Until and unless they do so, they are perpetuating racism in its most virulent and dangerous form. And it will continue to haunt them.
Bravo, Robert. Bravo.
Has his son/campaign director beaten the crap out of any more women lately? I guess it’s in his interest to make sure that the women his son dates/batters aren’t armed.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/12/Rep-Jim-Moran-s-Son-In-Trouble-Again-Pleads-Guilty-to-Beating-Up-Girlfriend
so looks like his son be ineligible to own a gun . . . no wonder pops wants to disarm us.
I don’t know if all those blessed over Christmas are writing to my reps but I can’t get through to ANY of my federal reps via e-mail, for those that actually have a contact “*” button or page. I don’t know what it might indicate. But, if you want to contribute to these unresponsive “Officials” no problameo. Buttons to direct you to contribute all over. ability for you to let them know what you want them to represent……Not so much.
my senators had numbers to call on their senate.gov website. My representative did not, but googling their name with “phone number” gave me what I needed.
Funny, gun control has the same affect in Camden N.J.
Any thoughts on gun control in Hawaii?
If I lived on a relatively small island with ~500,000 other people, the one thing I absolutely could not do without, is a firearm. “Gun control” or no.
Well 20 years ago on the north shore all I remember were spear guns and 22’s for killing feral pigs and goats
I understand what the author is attempting to say, but there seems to be a disconnect with causation. Areas of high population concentrations, regardless of ethnic/racial composition, tend to support Democratic lawmakers because Democrats support incoming state/federal entitlement funding that is not proportionate to the urban area’s capacity to generate tax revenue. (Granted, this has its own issues of causation, but that’s another issue.)
The point is, Democrats “harvest” voters from areas with lower per capita income in exchange for government funding, with the payoff being near-perpetual terms in office. This exchange results in an increased reliance on the institution of government, which carries an inverse relationship to self-reliance. The result of that is a decline in ownership, responsibility, ethos and ultimately simple values such as caring for one’s family. The deterioration of family is what underlies crime.
Race is incidental, though unfortunately it is America’s history of slavery, segregation, and (sadly and ironically) desegregation, affirmative action and social spending that have made black populations that have historically been isolated to urban areas particularly susceptible to Democratic exploitation and equally selfish Republican abandonment. These residents have been reduced to a political commodity that is used to allow the politicians they support to carry out a well-intentioned but failed and counterproductive agenda that relies on social engineering and government intervention, hence failed gun controlled policy in urban areas.
Just offering 2 cents to add to the discussion.
I was thinking more along the origins of such draconian legislation. Was gun control a method to keep indigenous Hawaiians down? Or are they just all a$$holes?
Meant to reply to SD3.
I definitely see your point and for the most part I agree. I would however point out that there has been a huge migration of minorities ongoing, as indicated by the last 2 census, from urban to more suburban/rural regions. Anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate the 2 causes are cost of living and concerns for safety – the later supporting the idea, at least indirectly, that is being proposed.
Gun rights are the modern day civil rights struggle.
I’m proud of you RF because I dont’ think anyone could have said it better (except for maybe Ralph).
Newtown is located off 84 not 684.
The school is just off exit 10.
Text amended.
I’m definitely in favor of making all PPT’s go through a FFL. I think we need to, not just give the grabbers what they want but also get some “common sense” laws passed for us, like nationwide CCW reciprocity.
Seeing as how I don’t ever buy guns in private sales, this wouldn’t bother me at all, but I’m still against FFL only transfers.
I don’t want or need the gov’t involved in my private business. I choose who I buy from or sell a firearm very carefully. National reciprocity would most likely be run by the BATFE and be much more restricted and burdensome than most States. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Furthermore while gun control advocates scream “enough dead children” they couldn’t give a damn about dead Afghani babies from drone strikes.
How about regulating that, dirtbags? Unless the life of a white American baby is somehow more valuable than that of one from the Middle East.
“Unless the life of a white American baby is somehow more valuable than that of one from the Middle East.”
Actions speak for intentions…..
and if you asked this to jessie or al sharpton, they would tell you the right wingers are the REAL racists and the NRA is the new KKK. Until the lefties learn this lesson the hard way, their tune won’t change.
Does New Haven have gun control that doesn’t exist in the rest of CT? You seem to be leading up to that, but it’s left unclear.
I understand the role of bigotry against minority groups, but new gun control seems motivated largely by fear of young white men.
To my knowledge, New Haven does not have any different laws with regards to gun ownership. With the exception of New London, which prohibits carry of pistol within city limits, which is likely preempted by state law as a substantive matter, our laws are uniform.
Obtaining a Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver in CT is expensive and an undue burden. You cannot carry or buy a pistol or revolver without the permit. In spite of heavy local property taxes, and a state income tax, like many other public services in the CT, fees are paid at every step of the process to local and state government.
The process starts with an NRA basic pistol class. I have seen classes advertised for as high as $115. Which is high, but keep in mind an hour of range time will cost you $25 at a public range in CT.
Applicants then submit an application, including questions regarding your employment and mental health history, to their chief law enforcement officer, along with NRA certificate, and two sets of fingerprints – one for the FBI, the other for the CT Department of Public Safety, a.k.a., the State Police. In my town, the local processing fee was, I believe, $70, plus $25 for the FBI background check. There may have been a fee for fingerprint, but I don’t remember.
Baring any issues, the chief of police issues a temporary permit within 8 weeks. The temporary permit is valid for, I think, 60 days, but only in your town. After you are issued the temporary permit, you appear in person at to the State Police, present the temporary permit, and a check for $70. The State Police destroy your temporary permit and issue a CT Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver.
You then RUN to the gun store, buy a TZ-75, and realize after a week realize it is too heavy for EDC and that it will not reliably fee 115 gr. bullets, with the stock recoil spring. You eventually solve this by buying a lighter recoil spring from Wolf’s, but in the meantime have transitioned to snub nose .38 that goes everywhere with you.
Kidding aside, it is a pain and if you check local CT gun forums, there are many, many stories about New Haven, and other large cities, which are majority black, intentionally taking longer than the mandated 8 weeks to process the application. Many other departments take longer as well and launch what are essentially investigations in your character, i.e, talk to your neighbors, call your boss, etc. Depending on the department, and the discretion of your chief LEO, it can be intrusive. If you are denied, you can appeal.
The bottom line is if your have a pistol permit in CT you have jumped through many, many hoops, and paid a chunk of change, to exercise what is a basic constitutional right.
Modern gun control laws continue this racist legacy through various tests (e.g., concealed carry applications), taxes and restrictions on firearms ownership.
lol wut? Are you saying blacks are somehow incapable of filling out CCW applications, and they by and large do not know anyone who is capable of reading and writing? The restrictions are unreasonable because a disproportionate amount of them are felons? Where RF is from, Rhode Island, charges $10 a year for a CCW permit. Are you saying blacks are incapable of coming up with $10 in a single year, but are somehow capable of purchasing a gun and ammo which costs at least 30x-50x more?
You also ignored that some of the largest gun control groups are almost exclusively black, such as Ceasefire/Stop Violence.
You want to see gun control in action? Go to New York City. Los Angeles. Chicago. Boston. Camden.
NYC has a jewish major, LA has a hispanic mayor, Chicago has a jewish mayor, Camden NJ has a black mayor. In fact the only white guy there was Boston’s mayor. So all these minorities are self hating racists?
Its findings couldn’t be more clear: crime is lower where guns are more prevalent.
I’m not sure if you noticed but guns are prevalent in the highest crime communities. How do you think all those strong armed robberies, murders, drive bys, etc happen? Why do you think schools in the ghetto have multiple police officers in them and metal detectors are all the doors?
WOW Matt, you ARE confused. If you were familiar with US history, you would know the first gun control laws in this country were meant to keep the newly freed black slaves from owning firearms. This was so the KKK and other racist groups were free to terrorize and kill them and they couldn’t fight back.
As for your second so – called point, those are illegally owned guns. The good people in those hell holes are prohibited from owning / carrying guns and thereby defending themselves.
Well put RF. People don’t want to talk about racism. People treat it like a third rail.
As Matt pointed out there is a lot of guns in areas, like oh Chicago, but those are not legal guns on law abiding citizens. There is a key difference.
Lott’s study was done in 1997. There have been numerous studies on the topic since then. Here is a 2008 meta study by Harvard : http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Fall_2008.pdf
It provides a synopsis of all studies on the topic, and concludes that any effect concealed weapons have on crime rates is negligible.
FYI, Lott has continued to update his book & is up to a 3rd edition published in 2010.
I haven’t read Harvard’s study yet, but I’m cautious about bias. I have read other conclusions from those trying to debunk Lott’s study & nobody could link concealed carry with an increase in crime. At best it was as you report the Harvard study with negligible results. To me, this is still a positive as it gives the anti-gun crowd no ammunition to deny a right based on additional risk.
Check out the link- it’s a compilation of all studies. Some support Lott’s conclusion, some find no effect, and some find conceal carry weapons increase crime rates. It’s not cherry-picking only the studies that support a particular view.
Great, solid argument. Especially the whole racial angle. Except for one thing, black men received the right to vote in the XV Amendment to the Constitution. Way before women, by the way, is the XIX (that means 19). Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education was about DESEGREGATING schools. Not so much about voting. But, it appears, according to your dissertation, that the whole desegregation thing hasn’t worked out so well, since most gun violence happens in urban areas. Well, except for Connecticut. All in all well done though.
Text amended. Thanks.
Nice article, but one logical flaw. The Supreme Court has made a decision (2000) that there is no right to vote granted by the Constitution in a Federal election. The 15th amendment declares a state may not deny the power of the vote based upon race, color, or if they had been a slave. It does not state that a state might choose to deny voting rights based upon other criterion. Being a felon will remove voting rights. There are endless other possibilities which are legitimate for denying voting “rights”
http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendment#.UNxWsRxQOME
Very nice article I completely agree with you RF. Gun laws are pretty racist. I know that because I live on a reservation. If many of you don’t know what that is its a piece of land that was given to Native Americans (First Americans) by the government or a land that was given to native people by executive presidential order. This land was made so native people can be contained and live their instead of on ancestral land. So living on the reservation people are ordered to register their weapons. Take a photograph of their firearm. Pass a further background check. Have fingerprints taken. Then someone will review your application and they will decide if you deserve a permit to have a weapon. To me that shows there’s still a belief that natives will rise up.
Comments are closed.