Posted on 01/19/2023 9:49:47 AM PST by rellimpank
The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. And if you look at the lives that are taken by gun violence, it's a very minuscule percentage that are taken by these so-called weapons of war, which are not weapons of war. These are not weapons that the military uses. People actually use AR 15s for hunting. There's a lot of people who do. There's a lot of people who use it for home defense. And you have the right to have that. And to me, this whole assault weapon hysteria is just a precursor to putting restrictions on the more commonly used guns that are actually used in gun violence: handguns. There's no good reason to deprive responsible law-abiding citizens of the right to bear these arms.
The very roots of the gun control movement in America were designed to disarm black people as slaves even as they became freedmen, because they would use these to protect themselves from external racist threats. So as time went on, they had to change the nature of these laws because you can't pass laws saying we don't want black people owning guns, but now they do it in a way that's a lot more subtle.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
But it’s “Newsweak”! That means we must reflexively take the opposite position!
“The very roots of the gun control movement in America were designed to disarm black people “
(and they still are . . . by the same Plantation Owners)
how did that pithy truth EVAH get into print in the Corporate Media?
Is it snowing in Hell too?
So do drug laws, theft laws, assault laws, murder laws, etc., etc.
Well said!
Blacks have a disproportionate impact on whites, Asians, Jews, and Hispanics.
Although no one dare quote it, one of the reasons behind the Dred Scott decision was that if blacks were considered to be citizens, with the rights of citizens, they’d be free to live where they want and be armed.
One of the history books that I used in jr high had a painting of a black family and the shack they were living in. I asked my students how they could tell it was a freedman’s home instead of a slave’s. None noticed the giveaway clue—there was a shotgun by the door.
I agree.
Gun laws are racist.
And 98% of the time it would be prudent to do so.
Which is fine if you like being wrong 2% of the time.
As a general rule, if you find a leftist making sense on some issue, or you are agreeing with him, it makes even more sense to read it again very, very closely.
I’m not going to bother to read the full article, because I don’t GAF what anybody opines at this point, especially and particularly at Newsweek. But I would argue the headline itself is offensive, separating people by race as a “community”.
Either we are Americans, or we are not. Going tribal is not the answer for success going forward, dividing people up into groups is not healthy. The people who insist on this are very aware of this; it isn’t an accident.
Precisely.
‘But I would argue the headline itself is offensive, separating people by race as a “community”.’
No, the headline didn’t separate people by race into different communities. People did that, as they naturally have since the beginning of time.
“Blacks have a disproportionate impact on whites, Asians, Jews, and Hispanics.”
See my earlier post on this. Even without thinking about it consciously, perhaps we are incorporating how they want us to think about race and culture and the rest of it. Look at what you wrote, and particularly the way you wrote it. I first noticed this maybe 30 years ago. It is insidious.
Did you hit your head really hard or something? LOL
Spend some time around your county courthouse. You will find that blacks seem to find guns pretty easily—even in states with strict laws.
“how they want us to think about race and culture and the rest of it”
The problem is that it always was anti-historical to think that a melting pot could work for the long term.
“They” have had an easy time deconstructing it because the foundations were always shaky.
The key to the “American dream” was opportunity available for all to prosper.
Once the state started to pick winners and losers it was all over but the final screaming.
Most of the laws restricting the right of the people to be armed are aimed, (pardon the pun) at people who do not have much money or power.
You need to take a class (costs money), get a permit (costs money), renew on a regular basis (costs money), keep any weapons in a special box (costs money), have a certain type of weapon (costs money), show that you practice (costs money), and so on and so forth.
And these are laws that you find even in a shall issue state.
It is meant to be a financial burden.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=1&rdoData=rp
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305240780/The-Color-of-Crime
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.