She also attracts racists whose primary motive is to disarm black males no matter what.
These people shouldn't be allowed on the street to say nothing of getting audience to write laws to restrict guns and gun ownership.
1. Those who go straight get all their rights restored. As was once the case, some FReepers have noted in the past.
2. Those who are going to acquire a gun illegally and use it in a crime are completely undeterred by the current system.
3. You get rid of proven-useless measures including background checks, waiting periods, rate-of-purchase restrictions and more, that accomplish nothing except to harass and impede (currently legal) gun owners. See #2.
Of course, there are two measures that should accompany this:
A. Heavily punish the use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
B. Even more heavily punish re-offenses of same.
One of the most egregious cases was New York, as pointed out by Tribune 7 above, and another that became precedential was the case of Illinois' wholesale rejiggering of 2A rights through their Militia Law, the purpose of which was to disarm unionizing laborers who were being beaten up by goon-squads of Chicago police at the direction of politicians who, not to put too fine a point on it, were former close associates of Abraham Lincoln himself.
If the author wants to contextualize Southern gun-control laws and black codes, he needs to place it in the post-Civil War context of mass disenfranchisement and the despoliation and desolation of States of the Union in the name of, and for the advantage of, a Northern political faction that divided the nation and then destroyed half of it in order to impose a nationwide political machine. He would also be required to explain military government of the Southern States (and re-justify them: hint, he can't), "reorganization" of States' sovereign affairs, and other unconstitutional actions that were taken in the pursuit of political empire.
And as for "racism" and black codes -- that is another whole subject, full discussion of which does not redound to the moral splendor of the victorious Northern States and their politicians.
National Review, with this article, demonstrates again that it has fallen into the hands of neo-conservative South-bashers, and every time it produces another article like this, it plays into the hands of "cracker-bashing" Democratic politicians like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Free people can defend themselves with lethal force, if necessary. From whoever is trying to murder them. If you can’t be armed, you can’t defend yourself, and you really aren’t free, but at the mercy of whoever DOES have the weapons.
There will always be weapons. Free men can have weapons for self defense and defense of family and property. Slaves, subjects, etc, cannot.