So the NRA doesn’t run a “relief” program so that (mostly white) felons can regain gun rights?
The NRA shifted positions back as soon as the Panthers weren’t around any more, conveniently. It’s still being run by white, Southern conservatives, and given the huge deluge of racist rhetoric coming from them even today (wherein guns are necessary to protect against scary black and brown people), if you’re going to claim the NRA isn’t racist, or that Wayne LaPierre and the NRA board somehow don’t represent the NRA, the burden of proof is entirely on you.
Most of the examples provided were evidence of idiotic police lack of thought (really, pizza?), but the one that got me was the microphone stand. Anyone wielding a big metal polearm bearing down on you is dangerous. Yes, it could very reasonably be argued that the po-po could have used less than lethal force (pepper spray, taser etc…) to disarm man with metal pole with some good reach, or sheltered in his car until the guy broke through…
My take is that a mike stand could indeed be a dangerous weapon, whereas the others (pizza, wallet, wii remote etc…) are all obviously pretty innocuous.
I don’t know. I haven’t ever read him saying that but if he is from the South, it wouldn’t surprise me.
There were also NRA chapters being set up in the south by black men during the Civil Rights movement.
You’ll have to point out this “deluge of racist rhetoric”. I haven’t seen it, at least not like in the American Rifleman or other publication. It’s a national organization with members all over the nation.
In an organization of 5 million people I am sure there are some racists. But I challenge you to show me a Jim Crow like bill they supported in the last 20 years. Quite the contrary they and other factions of the Gun Lobby have fought for more rights for every one. As I pointed out earlier, the last two big cases in Chicago and DC were spearheaded by black plaintiffs.
One of their most vocal and dead on spokesmen is Colion Noir. Though I guess his detractors could be right and he’s just an Uncle Tom.
Even if you’re misguided assumptions are correct, again, show me a racist gun law they supported in the last 20 years. Show me where they are trying to limit access to blacks owning guns. I’ll wait here.
Well, I liked the video, but the Seatopians are going to be pretty upset when they find out you’re associating Megalon with vision-impaired cops. That’s defamation of character! Megalon’s a perfectly respectable insect god, no more monstrous than any other. He’s never shot anybody over a 3 Musketeers bar.
Wow, an extreme left wing liberal publication that proves my point… Thanks.
The 68 Gun Control laws by themselves weren’t racist, but perhaps some of the motive behind them were. (here is an overview, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 feel free to pick out what you find to be bad about it.) I bet a lot of people here would find them not only reasonable but not even go far enough. Funny how the same people screaming for more gun control then point out that it was racists when the NRA supported it (but of course they are illogical if they don’t support it. Can’t ever win with some people.)
I mean really, from the article, doesn’t a gun law that “allow[s] concealed carry by people with a license, and those licenses should be restricted to “suitable” people with “proper reason
for carrying” a gun in public.”" sound reasonable? Prudent? Common sense? Now, remember who those “masters” are. They same ones who are also killing people in the street for little to no reason.
What eventually happened was that the leadership wised up that guns were tools. “Assault Rifles” or “Saturday Nigh Specials” weren’t inherently evil. Limiting one variety didn’t do anything for crime. Criminals still found what they needed. Trying to prevent the minority of criminals only ended up hampering the millions of lawful owners. Of course the NRA membership isn’t unanimous in this opinion. I know NRA members who are happy with their bolt actions and shot guns and wouldn’t give two shit if Evil Black Rifles and hand guns were banned.
And again - show me where they supported a Jim Crow-like law in the last 20 years.
What are we to make of your characterization of the New Republic as “extreme left wing”? Should we assume that you are an “extreme right winger” dedicated to a whole host of dangerous, seditious beliefs wholly outside the mainstream?
The test of any magazine is not whether it offers commentary well within one’s chosen political ideology, thereby avoiding the epithet of extremism, but whether its commentary is interesting.
Am I confusing it with something else? I thought the New Republic was very liberal. Didn’t they just have a big fall out editor and writers? Wiki says “liberal”. Maybe they aren’t “extreme”. I withdraw the description as “extreme”.
ETA my work filter won’t let me see your image.
I’m pretty in the middle. I find pundit mags on either side tend to tell one side of a story. (Like the National Review).
LOL. So you’re not aware of any of the speeches Wayne LaPierre, for example, has made in recent years? Or the views of NRA board members like Ted Nugent? Your ignorance is not really an argument. Feel free to Google what they’ve said. They’ve certainly said quite a lot.
And I think California introduced some gun control laws (when Reagan was governor) after one public rally of Black Panthers in Sacramento where they brought shot guns with them…
I agree with this, except this last line. If we had universal open carry laws, and more African Americans began to carry guns, and to shoot back at cops shooting at them, I can guarantee that more often than not, they’d get sent up the river, and depending on the state, executed, no matter the circumstances.
But that I think that’s a separate issue, perhaps. Gun owners should have proper training in the use of firearms, and maybe should be part of the process of getting a gun in the first place.
You know, if we had a society oriented around the ubiquity of guns, and around the widespread use of private guns to defend society’s mores, racists wouldn’t have to depend on institutional racism on the part of the police department; they could simply take matters into their own hands.
Well, wouldn’t they still benefit from the structural racism of the police (edited to add) and the criminal justice system, especially in terms of how people are prosecuted for crimes related to guns? That’s sort of my argument here. Whether or not guns are ubiquitous is kind of neither here nor there in that case. And they are doing that now anyway (though there have been a couple of high profile cases where people have been convicted for shooting unarmed African Americans recently, unlike the Zimmerman case). So, whether we’re all armed, or no one is, there is still the problem of structural racism to deal with…
The argument being made against victims of gun violence-- was that they weren’t angels. I’m reminded of the quote from “Le Cercle Rouge”.
: Il y a pas d’innocents. Les hommes sont coupables. Ils viennent au monde innocents, mais ça ne dure pas.
No one is innocent. All men are guilty. They’re born innocent but it doesn’t last. We all change for the worse."
Even in a society which applies a death penalty, it is (formally) reserved for a very specific kind of guilt,- provable guilt arising from murder, espionage, treason. (and a few others, mostly, involving the deaths of other individuals during the commission of certain crimes), and not a general loss of innocence.
The theoretical advantage of allowing cops to use their weapons to “preserve the social order” while denying that right to the general public is that cops can be publicly regulated in a manner befitting the needs of society–
this is acceptable use of force, but this is criminal
whereas someone like George Zimmerman acts according to private demons.
But generally speaking, this argument is aimed at kids like Mike Brown. It’s the politics of respectability all over again, yeah? There was a reason why the Montgomery bus boycott was built around Rosa Parks as opposed to Claudette Colvin. Black men and women in our society have to be twice as good to be eligible for basic human dignity…
It also depends on the definition of the social order, which up to really recently included the very public defense of white supremacy, and there is still a strong legacy of this, hence structural racism.
He may or may not, but his apparent belief that black men are criminally inclined is certainly inscribed in our culture, right? I like the example of Denzel Washington and the role he won an oscar for - it wasn’t his role as Malcolm X that won it, but his role as a thuggish, corrupt cop. Now, he was excellent in both, but I’d say that he was much better in Malcolm X.
I am personally in favor of some gun control, but I have no problem with people owning guns overall - but I’d like to see stronger screening, especially at gun shows and the like.
I also think the argument that an armed populace will keep the government on its toes has become moot, considering the militarization of the modern police force. Couple that with the continued racism in our society, and it really is a disaster for the black community. Our system is still systemically unequal and I think until we figure out a way to get at the heart of this, we’re not going to change the racism of policing in America.
