Posted: 2/18/2007 5:54:43 AM EDT
|
Could it be an attempt to stay ahead of (or catch up to) the flood of illegal immigrants, to get laws carved in stone before immigrants gain political strength? Are the powers-that-be tryin' to manifest what their forefathers promoted in the 1800's, hence the Lautenburg bill etc? Got more questions but not sure how to phrase 'em yet. t |
|
Well the beginings of guncontrol in America were in the south after the war between the states, aimed only at keeping blacks from owning guns. Seems it wasnt as fun to put on a white robe and hood and burn a cross in someones yard in the middle of the night if you stood a good chance of getting shot for your efforts. These days though its not so much about subjagating blacks as putting everyone under the jackboot, black and white. |
|
There is now, and always will be racial overtones in gun control laws. It's no accident that the most restrictive gun laws are in states with large minority (especially black) groups It's part of the reason crime is so high in the inner city. Ask any criminal what his biggest fear is, and it's an armed citizen |
Blacks might've been the majority in the scope of things then but, from what I've read, Mexicans Mullattas and Aboriginees were also part of the game plan. As far as "these days" go, could it be said that those in power are throwing caution to the wind just to get rid of firearm possesion by minorities? To disarm minorities "at all cost"? Another question: Anyone know what the general state of firearm ownership concerning Indians living on reservations is? thanks, t |
Not even Robert Byrd,dem. senator and KKK recruiter.
|
Everything you coudl want to answer these and many questions in oen paper. I cite that paper frequently. Deacons for defense were a very counter Klan pro RKBA group. And on the homefront, here in WA, Sen Kline, Rep Kagi and Rep Kohl are the ones backing our States gun bans. You cant make that shit up. And yes I have put this face to face with Wayne LaPierre. He was left 
|
Not quite right. The original gun control laws (not hunting laws) were designed to prevent slave insurrection. Thus, freeman, who were seen as the natural source of leadership for slaves, could not own guns. Slaves, on the other hand, could posess firearms with the consent of their masters. |
|
Simplified: People want certain guns (or even all of them, depending on who you ask) banned or otherwise regulated because they are afraid. They are afraid of being personally affected by them, in some way. They don't imagine a white guy in dockers and a polo doing the harming, either. They'll never admit it, but it's minorities with guns that make them nervous. They'll act insulted if you point this out to them, but deep down they know it's true. They know they can't say "I don't want blacks owning assault weapons and saturday night specials", but that's really the heart of it. |
I've read the Cramer paper, found it once upon a time when lookin' for details on the Watson case in Florida. I was researching CCW in a vehicle for personal reasons, appreciate you postin' the link. t |
I think klink is right. Gun control was originally about suppressing blacks, but now it is about suppressing all of us. |
That may be the "man on the street" reason, but I think that the reason politicos pursue is pure subjugation of the masses. |
| The racial history of gun control at www.blackmanwithagun.com |
|
The NFA Act of 1934 is one big "Jim Crow Law" designed to keep machine guns out of the hands of blacks and working class poor. That's why it is much easier to get a Class III tax stamp under a corporate status and there is a CLEO sign-off requirement for non-corp individual purchases. The local CLEO can deny sign-offs for no other reason that that they hate certain minorities and want to keep them disarmed. |
|
My own little data point on this was the request for firearms from my liberal friends during a recent local dust-up. Them: May I borrow a pistol? No: Probably a bad idea. You're more likely to shot yourself with it due to your lack of training. Additionally, its probably illegal to transfer a gun to you that way. You need a permit for a pistol at least. Them: But that permit doesn't apply to me, does it? In other words, they don't see gun control as applying to them or other "reasonable" (read as white and educated) people. At the very least its a nuisance. Instead, it's intended to apply to "unreasonable" (read not white and uneducated) people. Its always fun to watch a) their ship of bullshit hit the shoal of reality and b) a liberal have to visibly censor his impeding racist remarks. |
Hmm, then maybe a politico (or two) gettin' caught red-handed at this tactic would get the cards laid on the table.(?) t |
That's right, the first gun control law was in Louisianna and it was purely racially bigotted. It forbade any negroe from possessing a gun and gave any white man authority to shoot said negroe dead if he did not drop the gun or stick after being so ordered. |