Kind of ironic considering that the first Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrats to deprive newly freed slaves of their 2nd amendment rights. As the great Frederick Douglass said “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.” It’s good to see African Americans embracing their rights, even if I think their reason for suddenly doing so to be dubious.
Even more so when you consider those gun control laws directed at the newly freed slaves were cited as a key justification for the necessity of the 14th Amendment in the debates surrounding its adoption.
Of course, the intent of the 14th to ensure state government would not deprive citizens of their rights under the constitution was almost immediately eviscerated under the 'Cruikshank (sp?)" and ‘Slaughterhouse’ rulings which held the Bill of Rights were only limitations on the Federal government, not state governments. Which resulted in the theory of incorporation-- where each right has been individually considered as to whether it is a limitation on state governments as well as federal.
Given the break up and reorganization of the parties that happened afterwards it doesn’t seem the democrats of today have continuity of the democrats of that era much beyond the name.
It has happened before. As I understand it one of the things that Dr. Newton (Ph.D. Social Psychology, University of California) had been doing in the 1960s was getting African Americans armed and fully exercising their second amendment rights. I’m not yet labeling the motivation for becoming armed as dubious. The FBI had reported a significant increase in hate crimes. I think a person could be motivated to become armed from non-criminal threats or from hearing about them.
Okay, so why do Democrats want to deprive African Americans of their 2nd amendment rights now?
We lack agreement on the premise to your question that “democrats want to deprive African Americans of their second amendment rights now,” so I cannot address your question of “why.” You’ve not named a specific source for this assertion leaving open room for speculation on what it might be.
My *speculation *is that you are referring to a story on making a list of people that are convicted felons to do deny them the ability to purchase a gun. A known flaw of name-based list is name collision; a law abiding citizen could have the same name as a convicted felon. I’ve seen this happen before. A coworker was denied entry into his new apartment on his move in day because on that day they noticed he had the same name (but different middle initial) as a child sex offender. A close relative had an issue with a person with the same name as him being on the no-fly list. This relative works for an airline and must fly frequently. His employer/airline made an ID with an intentional error in his name to work around this problem. My father had an issue with a water bill when someone of the same name had a house fire and the county tried to bill him with the water used to put out the fire. It was asserted that name based restriction list would end up causing more problems for minority-Americans than white-Americans. Some have concluded (and this is what I speculate to be the source of your assertion) that name based restrictions would be designed to add obstacles to the pathway of minorities getting guns and an indication that someone wishes to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. Being an indicator that makes no distinction between a person that is unaware of the affects of such a restriction from a person that is unaware it’s not a good indicator on which to say that someone’s goal is to keep guns out of the hands of minorities.
It’s possible your assertion is based on something else. If it is please provide supporting information for the assertion.
To be fair, regressive democrats want everyone but the government LEOs and politicians disarmed. They’ve been successful in the cities they control DC, Chicago etc. where the citizens actually affected are predominantly the inner city which happen to be African American. But the gradual erosion and eventual elimination of 2A rights for everyone is the goal. It is why Hillary and Chelsea both gave speeches about appointing SCOTUS justices that would overturn Heller and McDonald.
We need to pray for this country. I fear a Civil War might be on the horzion. Even if it’s not a true military one like the first, I fear we could see an all out street war.
It’s been a lot more recent then that. Laws banning “Saturday Night Specials” were being passed in Democrat dominated cities in the 1970s. Those laws were targeted at blacks and other minorities who could only afford the low priced handguns the laws banned. They were actually little different from the laws passed during Reconstruction which also targeted the low priced handguns newly freed slaves could afford but exempted the more expensive guns whites had.
In the amici brief the ‘Congress of Racial Equality’ provided in Heller, they explain the racist origin of the term ‘Saturday Night Special’.
Not out of the question if Civil Rights and Voting Rights begin to roll back. The country is armed to the hilt. Many factors could set it off like job discrimination if good paying jobs do come back. City Riots like seen in the 1960’s could happen.
Sad. I’ve been watching the “fringes” of American society for decades and some sort of race war has been predicted for decades. I’m all for Americans owning guns, but this climate of fear needs to be tempered by the fact that fear is the most widely used method to sell “news” to the public.
Look at the history of the Roaring '20s. Tommy guns, gang wars, Molotov cocktails, etc.
And it’s not just minorities buying guns now. The recent past shows another reason for spikes in gun sales. money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/
The creation of drug laws were the same way, they were never intended to be used against the white people, only certain minorities who lived in certain parts of town. They were used a tool to control minorities.
I’m just fine with minorities buying guns. I do have a serious problem if the motivation is the fear-mongering to which the left has been subjecting minorities. Does anybody seriously believe Trump is going to initiate a pogrom based on race, with FBI agents sent out to gun down minority members?
If, indeed, minorities are buying guns out of fear that Trump with line them all up against the wall and shoot them, it’s a terrible shame. The greater likelihood is more totally unnecessary shootouts with police if, indeed, minorities really believe the leftist hype.
Personally, though, I doubt most minority members really believe all of that. There will be some, though.
Assuming “hate groups” are feeling emboldened by Trump’s election (apparently 50% of American are now a “hate group” :rolleyes:), isn’t it a positive thing that the “targets of hate” are taking positive steps to be able to protect themselves from these violent thugs (who apparently make up 50% of the country :rolleyes:)?
The media and special interests groups are fueling this. There is an immense amount of over reaction here. There is no reason to speculate some sort of civil war. “Hate groups” seem to be almost always a one sided reference. It goes both ways. People need to take a step back and catch their breath. There is some unrest and a lot of silliness over this election results. Things are not going to be dramatically different than they have been in the last 8 yrs.
Interesting; the brief mentions that in some jurisdictions even today the licensing authority (such as the local chief of police) has discretion over who can own a gun. That doesn’t seem right, to give somebody that authority, and you can see how that can be abused, not just to discriminate by race but for other reasons.
I’ve gotten into arguments over this with gun control advocates.
"Oh, Hillary doesn’t really want to take your guns away. That’s a lie, and if you think it you must be a . . . "
Maybe she didn’t actually advocate it on a national level, but if your state passed a ban on guns it would be up to the Supreme Court whether the ban is constitutional. Hillary did not agree with the Heller court that the Second Amendment grants a right to self-defense, and would presumably have appointed Justices who would agree with that.
Those ignore History are bound to relive it. Hate groups feel emboldened after this election. My hope is the new Administration nips these groups in the bud with action not just words. South Carolina Nicki Haley handled a potential explosive situation in the right intelligent way.
What are “hate groups”? Seriously, If someone calls you a “hateful bigot” for voting for Trump, that’s a good thing? This is way overblown. Way overblown. Even if one “hateful bigot” voted for Trump does not automatically mean that person belongs to any group.
I was there for the riots. What is Homeland Security for? Again, the goal is to create fear instead of intelligent conversation.
Human nature has not changed in the last 40 years.
‘Trump made me do it’ :rolleyes: