Featured Post

The Right of the People, But Not THOSE People, to Keep and Bear Arms…

The Right of the People, But Not THOSE People, to Keep and Bear Arms...

Laura Ingraham: the gift that keeps on giving.

In a year in which she mocked a high schooler’s rejection from college, told LeBron James he should “shut up and dribble” rather than express a political opinion, and explicitly lamented the “demographic change” brought on by immigration, she has managed to find another way to be offensive. And this time, she has revealed more about her authentic self than ever before when she retweeted a rather problematic  piece from conservative opinion website The Daily Caller:

These aren’t Ingraham’s words, though she certainly appears to agree with them. The article’s headline-as well as the body of the article-give validity to an argument made by many on the left and in anti-firearm circles: gun rights are only meant for white people.

From The Daily Caller:

Members of the Black Panther Party marched through the city of Atlanta, strapped with assault rifles and brandishing Stacey Abrams campaign signs.

 *  *  *

Kemp’s campaign called on Abrams to immediately denounce the Black Panthers.

“It’s no surprise that militant Black Panthers are armed and patrolling the streets of Georgia for Stacey Abrams. The Black Panthers are a radical hate group with a racist and anti-semitic agenda. They are dangerous and encourage violence against our men and women in uniform,” Kemp spokesman Ryan Mahoney said in a statement to TheDCNF.

When a group of white men armed with AR-15s march, they are freedom-loving, 2nd Amendment-supporting patriots. When a group of black men do so, they are militant, dangerous radicals. When  AR-15s are carried by white people, they are run-of-the-mill firearms used for hunting; when black people carry them, they are assault rifles. Obvious racism is obvious.

If all of this seems a bit of a reach, or perhaps an isolated example of racism by an extremist faction of the right, one need only look to the history of “gun rights” in America to see it is simply carrying on a long, unspoken tradition.

It is hard to believe today with the ubiquitous positioning of the 2nd Amendment at the forefront of public debate, but the right to bear arms was not an important topic in the first nearly 200 years of the existence of our Bill of Rights. It simply was not a matter of much debate or jurisprudence; there were a grand total of three US Supreme Court cases directly dealing with the 2nd Amendment from 1791 to 1980. To compare, there have been four in the forty years since.

The influx of cases can be traced to the unrest of the late 1960s and, coincidentally, the Black Panthers. In 1966 in Oakland, California there was a rash of shootings of black men by the police (deja vous all over again). Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, the latter a law student, formed the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. The group intended to form patrols as a way of monitoring the actions of law enforcement in black neighborhoods. To that end, Newton had the idea that the 2nd Amendment, along with a California law permitting open carry, gave them the individual right to carry guns openly while on patrol. And so, they did.

Soon after, Mr. Newton, holding a rifle, stood in the vicinity of a police officer who was arresting a black man. The officer noticed and abandoned his detainee to confronted Newton and his compatriots, but the black men knew their rights; they refused to budge from their observation point or to hand over their weapons.1 Soon after this incident, California State Assemblyman Mulford introduced legislation to criminalize the carrying of loaded weapons in public places.

On May 2, 1967, as the Mulford Act was set to be debated in the California legislature, the armed Black Panthers arrived at the statehouse, where they encountered the governor of California at the time, Ronald W. Reagan. Reagan was on the lawn, addressing a group of middle-schoolers. The children were curious about the Panthers and approached their group- followed by the press. Bobby Seale took the opportunity to call out the legislature and their direct attempt to criminalize the activities of the Black Panthers, and delivered a statement:

“The Black Panther party for self-defense calls upon the American people in general and the black people in particular to take careful note of the racist California Legislature which is considering legislation aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror, brutality, murder and repression of black people.”

Then, a group of the 30-odd Black Panthers entered the California Statehouse with the intent of observing as the Assembly debated the Mulford Act. Looking for the spectator gallery, they were inadvertently directed to a door that entered onto the floor of the chamber. Imagine the scene, as roughly a dozen members of the Black Panther party entered the chambers of the California State Assembly, carrying firearms. Chaos ensued as one might expect, and the group was marched out of the building. Their weapons were confiscated and several were taken to the police station, despite having violated no law, with one officer telling a reporter for the Sacramento Bee  “We’re going to take them all down and check them all out and we’re going to check out all these weapons.”

The Mulford Act passed.

Certainly, the National Rifle Association, the staunch champions of individual gun rights took up the cause, denouncing the new law as an infringement upon the rights of the members of the Black Panther Party to exercise their 2nd Amendment freedoms.

No. No they didn’t. The NRA fought alongside the government to disarm the feared Black Panther Party and other African Americans. Notably, another surprising figure in the outcry for gun control in the wake of the Panther’s demonstration was none other than the icon of modern American conservative thought, Ronald Reagan:

There’s absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon.”

–Ronald Reagan, May 2, 1967

This was the impetus for and the beginning of the push for gun control- as well as the backlash against it. And it would appear to be a compelling argument for the pro-gun side today, to point out the racist beginnings of gun control. But as illustrated by The Daily Caller article tweeted out by Laura Ingraham, the underlying attitude remains: a rifle in the hand of a white person represents a God-given right to self-defense; in the hands of African Americans, it is an instrument of menace, a crime waiting to happen.

Take, for example, the case of Marissa Alexander, a black woman in Florida, who spent six years either behind bars or under house arrest for firing a warning shot at the man who was attacking her. The “stand your ground” law, which protected from conviction a man who pursued and then shot to death an unarmed teenager, was not extended to Ms. Alexander.

Then there is the example of Selma, Alabama resident Jacqueline Dixon, also black, charged with murder for fatally shooting her estranged husband when he charged at her from her front lawn. Despite a documented history of abuse, Alabama’s own version of “stand your ground” did not shield her.

Or Philando Castile, a lawfully licensed gun owner shot while sitting in his car during a traffic stop simply for having a gun, even after alerting the police officer to its presence.The 2nd Amendment, that sacred institution of the American right, is not uniformly available to all of our allegedly equal citizenry. In a time when conservatives want to convince the left that the racism they decry is no longer a serious issue, the The Daily Caller reveals the truth.

  1. As recounted by Bobby Seale in the October 12, 2017 episode of the More Perfect podcast. []

Senior Editor
Twitter  

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

60 thoughts on “The Right of the People, But Not THOSE People, to Keep and Bear Arms…

  1. “There’s absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon.”

    Reagan was right…sort of. I am okay with concealed carry. Open carry is a blight and I honestly wish they would outlaw it. I increasingly see more and more people open carrying in the grocery store, etc and I really have to resist the urge to ask them what they are trying to prove.

    Also (since I have recently been told that conservatives should declare their lack of racist motives on every topic going forward)…it goes without saying that the racial hypocrisy here is ridiculous.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I don’t like open carry, either. I feel that too many people who don’t know what they are doing are liable to strap one on just to feel good.

      At the same time, I’m wary of writing laws to do it. Private property owners have every right to forbid it on their premises, and I’d like more of them to do just that.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  2. Nearly all of the advocates for gun rights only believe that gun rights are for White Americans. Every time an African-American or another person of color gets in trouble for something a white person would get away with when it comes to guns they shut up.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • Are they “gun owners” (in the same way that they might be automobile owners or necktie owners or labradoodle owners) or “advocates for gun rights” (in the same way they might be geologists or intercity bus drivers or occupational therapists)?

        Because the whole point of this essay, I think, is that nearly all the “advocates for gun rights” are extremely inconsistent as to which “gun owners” rights they devote their resources of time, energy, and political capital advocating for.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I know a lot of advocates who get quite incensed over such obvious double standards, especially when held by politicians, pundits, and other leaders. Not only because of the obvious racism, but the classism/elitism. It gives strength to the idea that only important and powerful people should be allowed to be armed, or otherwise protected by armed men (that was part of the Heller argument, after all).

            Quote  Link

          Report

  3. Also (since I have recently been told that conservatives should declare their lack of racist motives on every topic going forward)…it goes without saying that the racial hypocrisy here is ridiculous.

    Gee, maybe try growing up a bit. I thought the libs were supposed to be the snowflake cry babies.

    On topic, good article, Em. And I agree with Mike about open carry. It’s funny that the gun bloggers I used to read never criticized Saint Reagan for his actions.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  4. When a group of white men armed with AR-15s march, they are freedom-loving, 2nd Amendment-supporting patriots. When a group of black men do so, they are militant, dangerous radicals. When AR-15s are carried by white people, they are run-of-the-mill firearms used for hunting; when black people carry them, they are assault rifles. Obvious racism is obvious.

    I agree with this full stop, but there is still a problem. And it’s a general problem with arguments based on perceived hypocrisy: with which part of Ingram’s argument do you agree? Is she right that white people marching with AR-15s is OK or is she right that black people marching with AR-15s is a danger.

    Here’s another way to ask the same question: if conservatives were less racist and supported black gun rights as aggressively as they supported white gun rights, would that be enough to sway you to the side of supporting more gun rights? My sense is that for most people of the “nobody needs guns” persuasion, the answer is no (not that I know you’re of that persuasion).

    An argument for or against a group if people is not the same as an argument for or against a particular policy position. And I think that this is one of the reasons that we’ve gotten so bad at moving policy. We’re too busy arguing against each other’s identities.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • My sense is that for most people of the “nobody needs guns” persuasion, the answer is no (not that I know you’re of that persuasion).

      I’m not of the “nobody needs guns” persuasion (like at all), but many of the folks on my side of the aisle are. And I think it would move some of them at the margins. And others who are less extreme could be shifted.

      Consider people who just want to ban “assault rifles”. Yeah it’s a pretty weak idea on the merits but, well, here we are. But it’s weak enough that I think it’s being sustained in large part by culture war bundling. Nonsense like Ingraham’s is not going to help with that perception. Quite the contrary, really.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I think for a lot of left of center people the gun is a cultural totem of the enemy. This is of course fed by various right of center groups actually using firearms that way.

        On the rare occasion I’ve disclosed my views on this subject in a politically hostile social situation (which where I live is basically everywhere outside my social circle) I’ve often heard a variation of ‘maybe if gun owners were more like you…’ My response is that plenty are.

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • j r if conservatives were less racist and supported black gun rights as aggressively as they supported white gun rights, would that be enough to sway you to the side of supporting more gun rights?

      Speaking only for myself, it would be enough to get me to listen to their arguments with a belief that they were sincerely believed and expressed, which might or might not sway me to the side of supporting more gun rights, depending on the arguments.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Speaking only for myself, it would be enough to get me to listen to their arguments with a belief that they were sincerely believed and expressed, which might or might not sway me to the side of supporting more gun rights, depending on the arguments

        I think this is a very important point, that gets lost every time we talk about the NRA and similar organizations, and should bona-fide hunters et.al. (hello, @mykedwyer) break up with the NRA or push forcefully for some internal change.

        if the NRA makes it clear to me (and to most) that they care less about gun owners that they care about other things (like gun purchases, or worse), why should I should give the NRA and their arguments the time of the day?

        That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to give gun owners due attention to their concerns, but it’s up to them who they chose as spokespersons. The NRA claims it is representing gun owners, and most gun owners stay mum when the claim is made, which I interpret they are fine being represented by the NRA.

        Gun owners have agency. If they don’t want the NRA carrying their voice, with whatever social consequences that might carry, then they should do something about it. Being “serious people” “greatly concerned” about the message the public receives, like a GOP Senator, and not doing anything else, is not enough.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • …why should I should give the NRA and their arguments the time of the day?

          The depends entirely on how much you care about arguments and how much you care about identities.

          More broadly, the thing that I find most weird about your comment is that it implies that gun owners have some obligation to prove their sincerity to you. Why? I’m sure that you’re a perfectly nice person, but the political reality is that gun owners don’t need your support. They occupy most of the high ground. Generally speaking, the onus is on the person trying to change the status quo and not the other way around.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Generally speaking, the onus is on the person trying to change the status quo and not the other way around.

            True, but the status quo is already changing. A majority of people in the USA do want some restrictions in gun ownership, restrictions that can go from background checks to banning. The NRA is the one fighting this change. Gun owners seem to be ok with being represented only by the NRA in this process, and, if they are, so am I.

            If and when the status quo do change -and i think it’s very likely the status quo will change- it will be because the American people did not accept the NRA arguments. which are the only ones on the table

            My suggestion is that the NRA speakership is harming the gun owners. They, of course, are free to disagree, and apparently have. I will just then evaluate what the NRA says, like that Philando Castille is dead because he was a regular weed user, and vote accordingly.

              Quote  Link

            Report

          • The depends entirely on how much you care about arguments and how much you care about identities.

            Does it? Because from where I’m sitting, the NRA does more than anybody to make the gun debate about identities. “NRATV” airs ads that are encourage Freikorps cosplayers to defend Donald Trump for sinister leftists, revolting figures like Ollie North and Ted Nugent are the face of the organization, and when it comes time to stand up for the gun rights of people who aren’t old white dudes, the organization generally hems and haws its way to saying nothing.

            And sure, pro-gun types have the upper hand now, but this isn’t exactly an immutable reality. The pendulum could swing all the way back as early as 2020. The last time that happened, 10 years of rapidly declining rates of violent crime mean that gun control was a low priority issue for Team Blue, but since then we’ve had a steady drumbeat of atrocities from Sandy Hook to Thousand Oaks puncuating the national consciousness.

            If it’s all about identities then, well, what do you think will happen?

            (And this leaves aside the issue that a ton of people already live in states where guns are pretty tightly controlled. Not all of them are happy with that status quo.)

              Quote  Link

            Report

  5. It strikes me that there’s a difference between carrying a weapon while promoting a cause and carrying a weapon while promoting a candidate. I can’t articulate why, but the latter seems more of an explicit threat.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • If you’re carrying a weapon while promoting a pro-gun cause that makes sense to me.

      However, (openly) carrying weapons to support other causes or candidates both seem like threats. The threat seems to be “vote this way or else.” If you don’t normally open carry, what other reason besides intimidation is there in these cases?

      (Saying this, I understand, and too a certain degree respect what the BP were doing as described in the OP, since they were saying “equal treatment or else.” A non-violent approach is probably best, but I’m a white dude and haven’t faced what they faced.)

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I don’t know. As I said, I can’t articulate the distinction I’m making, but it’s not partisan. If you go to a pro-something rally with a gun, that doesn’t seem as threatening as if you go to a pro-someone rally. I guess there’s something more ambiguous about carrying a gun and supporting a cause. Something like free speech or health care, you’re not threatening people if they don’t do a specific thing. If you’re carrying a gun and insisting on a particular candidate, that seems more tangible. The reason I’m having a problem with the distinction is that I should be saying that carrying a gun and supporting a specific initiative or proposition is just as specific, but I don’t think it is.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • Maybe it’s just a personal taste thing. I’m not seeing any real difference between open carrying at a rally for a person vs. a cause. I don’t like either and said so about the Tea Party types years ago. All open carrying does is raise the heat and tension. But, as has been said, if it’s fine now it is fine for everybody.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • I think the issue may be that it’s an implicit threat, and an implicit threat against a specific person—the opposing candidate. Political assassinations are a pretty common thing. Hell, we’ve had four Presidents murdered in office, and Reagan came extremely close to being a fifth.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • Yeah i’ve always felt there is an implicit threat in bringing guns publicly into politics. The threat isn’t any less if the public situation is an issue instead of a specific candidate. It’s not like the good ol US of A doesn’t’ have regular examples of people shooting up groups of people and political issue rallies have individuals speaking who will not want to get shot.

                Quote  Link

              Report

        • I can understand that, but I tend to feel the opposite way. Strapped guys who show up to counter protest women’s marches for instance strike me as extremely threatening. Same with the armed alt-right dudes whether they’re protesting for something or counter protesting another group.

            Quote  Link

          Report

        • How about carrying a gun to a pro-life rally, or a sit-in inside an abortion clinic? Or maybe, carrying a gun when you counter-protest a gay-pride parade? or carrying a gun when protesting Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change? Or how about carrying a gun in a protest of the city’s plan to raise property taxes?

          To my mind, in each of these, carrying a gun is intended as a threat of violence.

          On the other hand, carrying a gun to a rally protesting police violence implies a willingness to defend yourself against further aggression.

            Quote  Link

          Report

      • So you feel that the right wing militia types who went around to political rallies sporting ARs were threatening, as a lot of liberals claimed?

        I certainly do. A person openly carrying a gun / knife / brass knuckles / katana / shillelagh / assegai (get my drift?) a weapon to a political rally or even to a regular public space is at least borderline threatening those around him/her, if not bullying. And even more frightening to me is the fact that that person also seems to feel both threatened and bullied. An armed person who feels threatened and is filled with a right-winged sense of both persecution and rectitude is a dangerous person. They can go to the range. Enlist in the military. Go hunting. Their fears and truculence have no place in the public square.

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • So the armed guys posting themselves as snipers on a freeway overpass aiming at BLM officers in support of Cliven Bundy’s gang in Nevada seem less threatening than guys marching with a candidate?

        Quote  Link

      Report

          • Not a reconsideration. I’m just not thinking in partisan terms. I’m looking at context. Sleep is good; sleeping behind the wheel is bad; Republicans sleeping behind the wheel is as bad as Democrats sleeping behind the wheel. Sleeping behind the wheel when you’re parked in the driveway isn’t bad at all.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • Perhaps “Counter-demonstrating with open carry a demonstration that does not have open carry” is generally bad, also in non-partisan terms, whether it’s a cause or a candidate one is counterprotesting?

              I mean, I can’t imagine NOT finding that threatening…

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • Counter-protesting with weapons is a bad scene, whether the demonstration is armed or not. I mean, I can imagine times when public safety requires civilians to take weapons into the street to dispel unrest, but there’s nothing coy about that. If you venture toward a crowd that you disagree with, and you’re armed, isn’t that pretty much a declaration that there will be violence? Not that it mandates a violent response from the initial group. I dunno. I’m trying to think of scenarios, and I’m drawing a blank.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

    • It strikes me that there’s a difference between carrying a weapon while promoting a cause and carrying a weapon while promoting a candidate. I can’t articulate why, but the latter seems more of an explicit threat.

      You are still hung up on that Rubicon thing, aren’t you? Well, perhaps it’s less worrying to you if the legions move south because they want to clean up the corruption in the Roman Senate, as opposed to supporting Caesar, but come on, somebody has to lead the movement. The two things are not that different.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  6. j r: I agree with this full stop, but there is still a problem. And it’s a general problem with arguments based on perceived hypocrisy: with which part of Ingram’s argument do you agree? Is she right that white people marching with AR-15s is OK or is she right that black people marching with AR-15s is a danger.

    Here’s another way to ask the same question: if conservatives were less racist and supported black gun rights as aggressively as they supported white gun rights, would that be enough to sway you to the side of supporting more gun rights? My sense is that for most people of the “nobody needs guns” persuasion, the answer is no (not that I know you’re of that persuasion).

    You’re right not to assume my stance on this issue- I tried not to take one in writing it. If anything, my “stance” in this piece is anti-racism.

    But, since you ask, I am actually a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights (West Virginian, hello), so I take the position that they and the white folk both should be permitted to carry within the law.

    I’ll hand over my lib card at our next meeting.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I’ll hand over my lib card at our next meeting.

      I’m not sure that is necessary. I’m libertarian-ish, with a strong belief in the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but I would absolutely support universal background checks, licensing and even mandatory training so long as it were paired with universal “shall issue” regulations. The positions of real people are way more nuanced than they are in our political narratives.

      I have a feeling that neither of us are going to get what we want on this issue anytime soon, though, and that’s largely because the debate tends to be about identities and not a straightforward policy discussion about how to get the best outcomes. And that’s a general point about the contours of the debate and not a critique of this post, with which I generally agree.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  7. I may finally be getting past the point of being disappointed when I see a group with a clear, strong, and at least defensible pronouncement of a principle is exposed to be just another front for something hateful.

    Look, I’ve come to modify my own understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment to something that is pretty dissatisfactory all the way around and which is different from what the NRA announces its own interpretation is. But I can see the principle the NRA is defending, the vision of the Constitutional right that it articulates.

    That this vision of the Constitutional right is originally rooted in the legal theories of Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party is by now well-documented and in light of these events, supremely ironic.

    With all that noted, I simply no longer expect the NRA to do anything like a principled defense of its own articulated principles. The ACLU would, and has, defended actual Nazis because its articulated principles demanded doing so. I’ve no such expectation for the NRA. It’s a trade group lobby (“buy more guns” is always its answer to any question) and this post demonstrates that it is really a cog in the larger right-wing machine — one as corrupted and controlled by money as the right-wing media, which means that whatever defensibility might be found in the principles is going to bow to consumer pressure because the paramount interest is that the cash keep flowing.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • My entirely unsatisfying understanding of the Second Amendment is that the bit about a well-ordered militia was meant to mean something, or they wouldn’t have put it there, but for the life of me I don’t know what. But any interpretation of the amendment that pretends that bit isn’t there is on its face faulty. Many people advocate an interpretation that would be unchanged were that bit deleted. This can’t be right.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Well ordered and regulated was to mean trained and drilled, etc.

        When we effectively did away with citizen militias, the regulated part kinda lost it’s intent, and AFAIK no one bothered to see if a new intent could be forged, and it was kinda left open to whatever interpretation was convenient.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • 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.

          When we effectively did away with citizen militias, the regulated part kinda lost it’s intent, and AFAIK no one bothered to see if a new intent could be forged, and it was kinda left open to whatever interpretation was convenient.

          Since we effectively did away with the Militia, we have proved that it was not indeed necessary at all to have one for the security of a free state. So it kind of makes the righ to bear arms unnecessary too, doesn’t it?

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • In a way, yes. But IMHO you still have two separate but intertwined clauses. Just because one is largely irrelevant doesn’t make the other moot. It just muddies the waters.

            In short, the 2nd was just ignored, when it should have long ago been amended by Congress, or more directly addressed by the courts.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • I agree that the waters are muddled and should be addressed. I disagree that we just should ignore the first clause, like Scalia wanted.

              Well regulated, for instance, would apply to proper licensing, including training and testing, and, if applicable, medical approval, no more, no less, than driving

                Quote  Link

              Report

        • We never did away with “citizen militias”. We just call it the “National Guard”. That’s one off the two hats they wear (the other is the United States reserve, basically). But they’re citizens, regularly drilled and trained, and under the command of the State government (when not being the US military reserve).

          Of course, they don’t actually need to bring their own guns to duty anymore (industrialization means that the NG has plenty to go around), which bites into the 2nd Amendment the other direction.

          But given the fairly obvious “worried about Federal Government jack-booted thuggery” origins of the 2nd Amendment (the whole ‘tyrannous federal government of the future’ thing being a bit of a sticking point during the whole drafting of the Constitution) , it seems clear to me that the National Guard actually fulfills the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

          It is a well regulated, well drilled force of citizens (specifically citizens of that State), well armed (ie, similar equipment to the armed forces of the Federal Government) , and subject to control by it’s State (except, of course, when it’s not). That they don’t actually need to own their own guns to be a member of the militia would probably be a surprise to our Founding Fathers, if only because of the sheer cost of acquisition and maintenance at the time.

          Which does sort of leave the 2nd Amendment floating around, untethered by original intent but still very much existing as part of the Constitution.

          Of course which side of the 2nd Amendment is obsolete or not really as applicable depends on whether you see the original intent to be about the individual defending or rebelling against a tyrannical federal government, or about an individual State doing the same thing.

          I lean towards the latter — but of course a State could always form a state militia, and instead of keeping it’s weapons in depots, issue them to it’s members or require it’s members to provide them, in which case the 2nd Amendment would definitely apply to trying to ban, seize, or control those weapons. (Because doing so would be, quite simply, an attempt to prevent the State from creating a well armed and regulated militia).

          Of course that’d be a pretty dumb move by whatever State decided it in general, but the Constitution has no “Unless that law was stupid and pointless” exemption.

            Quote  Link

          Report

  8. Being a dyed in the wool liberal gun owner, I tend to smack my head repeatedly at bot articles like this and the ensuing comment threads. Partly because so many people seem to not understand what liberals want regarding guns, and second because too many conservatives refuse to actually acknowledge the idiots on their side who have made guns a totem of stupidity. Were that second part not really a thing, we probably wouldn’t have to resort to significant over the top hyperbole just to get the conversation going.

    j r: Here’s another way to ask the same question: if conservatives were less racist and supported black gun rights as aggressively as they supported white gun rights, would that be enough to sway you to the side of supporting more gun rights? My sense is that for most people of the “nobody needs guns” persuasion, the answer is no (not that I know you’re of that persuasion).

    It would be a start, though there is no need for “more gun rights.” What we need is a sensible application of the existing rights.

    Take the “Well regulated” clause. Absent an actual militia with involuntary services (like, say, Switzerland), one can achieve “well regulated” through universal background checks, mandatory regular training, routine proficiency testing, and storage and handling affidavits along with liability insurance requirements. None of that requires seizing firearms (which is usually a fascist/authoritarian approach and not an actual liberal one).

    And before i get buried in an avalanche of 2nd amendment hooey, remember that the right to vote is secured in three separate amendments and an article of the Constitution, and we still have to register to vote and in most states we now have to have ID (to prevent non-existent voting fraud).

      Quote  Link

    Report

  9. I used to be in the too many guns crowd we should take your guns away. then I spent a lot of time actually interacting with well the socialists of color on Twitter and such and got educated about this very fact.
    the state doesn’t care when white people have guns. the state care a shitload when non-white people have guns. if we ban guns that’s who the state’s going to take them away from.
    There for everybody gets a gun.

      Quote  Link

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *