Sure, I agree it was a part of the reason for it. Though I am not sure how much. 10%? More? I’ve seen a few references to it for those reasons, but many more for the other reasons I have already outlined.
Though on the flip side, many gun control laws, had their roots in keeping them out of the hands of minorities, especially during the Jim Crow era. i.e. getting the Sheriff to sign off on a pistol purchase.
So really, even though the application of the 2nd Amendment has been inconsistent and lops sided at times, I think one wouldn’t have a strong argument that its bad because some people used it for white supremacy. ETA (which was insinuated)
I guess I will comment further (not directly to you), that while I don’t agree with pointing guns at other people as a general rule, why is the government allowed to do so with impunity? Why should a citizen not be allowed the same ability? If this person was guilty of something, how many cops and government agents are guilty of the same?
One last comment, and while I wish to urge the point that I am not a big fan of armed protest in general, its limited use DOES show one something. Armed protests do a bang up job at standing up to authoritarianism. Who are not getting tear gassed, maced, or corralled and beaten? Armed protestors. Cops want to go home at the end of the day. Not only are they not going to shoot civilians unprovoked, they aren’t going to do the other shit they can get away with when they are the only ones with force. They can’t because unlike most other times, there is the potential for consequences.
I clearly acknowledge that minorities get way more push back when they attempt to do the same thing.
Also to be clear the people protecting the Bundys were on the wrong side of the protest. Looking into it, it seemed pretty clear that Bundy was over stepping his legal bounds. So I am not defending their stance on the issue.
