18 April 2008

The 2A Has Racist Origins?

A fascinating . . . and disturbing piece from Mother Jones magazine.

"Gun-wielding journalists who can't shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they're just one of the many scary scenarios the District faces should the court rely on language inspired by slavery and the libertarians' whitewashed version of American history to restrict the ability of a majority black city to protect its citizens from gun violence."

Huh? Read the full essay for yourself. Any thoughts to send back to the author?

2 comments:

Harry Schell said...

Disarming citizens does not protect them from gun violence, as amply demonstrated, sooo methinks there is basic problem with the thesis.

Adrain Fenty and other mayors are black, which is the majority of the population. How then does this gun ban reversal look racist?

The history in many parts of the country, Los Angeles being one, has been to use gun control to disarm particular groups. Early LA law was clearly aimed at minorities in word and deed, until that became politically untenable. So now, basically only cops, criminals and campaign donors/other glitterati can carry concealed in LA county. In Compton there are no concealed carry permits issued, but Beverly Hills is okay.

Some language in the Constitution has been taken to discriminate racially. The basic tenets, "all men are created equal", however set the stage for the abolition of slavery and other law against racial discrimination. 2A is one of inalienable rights of all people.

As usual, the socialists have let their conclusion dictate their arguement.

BobG said...

The first gun control laws were to keep guns from the hands of blacks. One of the reasons for the Dred Scott decision was that some people were afraid that blacks (both free and slaves) would be able to carry firearms.

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."