I always try to find some hope in our society, but then there’s these types.
4 Likes
The scumbags do stick together. Here’s how Republicans in GA are stepping up to defend the NRA:
6 Likes
The reaction on Breitbart made me smile.
The post count is rolling over like a Hummer’s gas consumption gauge.
5 Likes
We all know exactly why the NRA was pro-gun control (see the Sacramento Capitol steps on May 2, 1967.)
2 Likes
The NRA’s function, at this point, is to make certain that when gun control laws are finally enacted people who are knowledgeable about firearms will not be consulted. The results will be much like when laws regarding technology are passed by people who don’t use email. Thanks, NRA!
2 Likes
Wow. They really are bucking for American Taliban status. No wonder so many were more than happy to vote for Trump. When and if civil society and institutions fall apart, they know their little gun clubs will finally have their day in the sun to “keep order”.
2 Likes
Absolutely it would.
The hypocrisy here is galling, as are any lame attempts to defend the indefensible.
13 Likes
I am trying to completely acknowledge the climate at the time involved radical groups like the Black Panthers, but they were NOT the only radical armed groups at the time. Let us not forget the Kennedy assassination was in 63, you had the murder rate starting a steep climb in the 60s, and the Red Scare, while winding down, was a thing. So when talking about the 1968 law, there was more than one reason for the bipartisan support. But I am acknowledging racism would be part of it.
The Mulford act seems to be more of a direct response to the Black Panthers, so if we are talking about that act (which was a state level law) I agree that racism was the primary factor for it. Though they use the same rhetoric I hear today, that it wouldn’t effect the good law abiding gun owners.
I have presented the issue that tons of other local city, county, and state laws were passed during the Jim Crow era were passed in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of minorities - specifically blacks, and especially in the South.
I have acknowledged in a past discussion that minorities don’t have equal APPLICATION of laws - including gun rights. I acknowledge that an armed protest with whites will meet with less resistance than and armed protest of minorities. I agree that is fucked up - but that is because of our sick society - not because people are excising their rights. There are people who don’t want minorities to exercise their right to vote or free speech either.
I am trying to acknowledge several of the points made, and even agree with some of them or acknowledge they are true. The two points I think deserve at the very least begrudgingly acknowledgement:
-
Since the leadership change in the 70s, the NRA has not supported any gun laws that could be considered racist.
-
That even though I agree racism played a part or was responsible for both the Gun Control act of 1968 and the Mulford act, I don’t think anyone calling today for more gun control would repeal a single part of either law. I would LOVE, LOVE to be proved wrong on that point. But even if I find a person who agrees with that point, the vast majority calling for more control, would not want these basic measures repealed. Personally, I’d be fine with it.
I think you’ve identified a leverage point where a narrow, but effective wedge could be driven between the NRA and the Gun Industry.
Please exploit.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about; the blatant hypocrisy of the NRA and lawmakers when it comes to people of color and their right as citizens to bear arms.
15 Likes
Given that they haven’t really supported any gun laws that don’t loosen gun ownership restrictions, this is accurate but misleading. The NRA May have gotten less overtly racist by demanding everyone have the right to own whatever guns they want, but they’re always suspiciously silent whenever the victim of gun violence or a police shooting is a law-abiding legal black gun owner.
13 Likes
To summarize this extremely disingenuous argument and statement:
“If you’re against racism, then you should be for getting these gun control laws that had their roots in racism and white supremacy repealed–but since you’re not interested in getting them repealed and thereby loosening gun control laws, you’re all hypocrites. But I’d ‘LOVE LOVE’ to find someone as eager to loosen gun laws as I am, because, as a pro-gun, anti-racism person, I’m in favor of repeal of these laws.”
3 Likes
I agree there was hypocrisy when the law was passed in the 60s. I disagree if we are talking post 70s, as they are no longer suggesting laws should be in place to limit minorities rights. Just the opposite.
You posted an image of Castile with out direct comment, but I assume as an example. I agree that his death was a tragedy and I hope he at least gets justice. I know the NRA got criticism for not making a statement on his death, and I personally think they should have. Though in the past they rarely have made statements when it comes to single individuals. In fact I don’t think they generally even defend single individuals unless they are challenging a law directly.
FWIW I know spokesman Colion Noir made several statements about Castile, though I know his critics just label him an Uncle Tom. I recall Noir also petitioning for justice for Marissa Justice who was imprisoned for what was pretty clearly self defense in Florida (she has been released since). Again I am acknowledging that the rights minorities have on paper, don’t always translate to being respected in the world. They should be.
I acknowledge that the NRA undoubtedly has racists within its org. But I can’t find evidence of them supporting laws limiting the rights of minorities since the leadership change in the 70s. And to repeat, this is why some minorities support the NRA because they are not suggesting laws that will limit their rights. Coincidentally, the first interaction I had directly with an NRA affiliate was a black man at a show who had signs about racism and gun control. It was an enlightening conversation. It was partly responsible for sparking my desire to be a proponent.
That is fair criticism, but also misleading, as I said above, I don’t recall them often making statements about individuals. Generally their statements stem from mass shooting where the call for statements can’t be ignored. See above for related comments.
But as you said, they aren’t supporting laws that would say not inconvenience a white middle class owner, but would a poor minority. Again, in an interview I saw with Killer Mike, whose politics are about as left as you can get, he said straight up he knows many of the people in the NRA don’t agree with him on every other issue. But this one issue they agree upon and the NRA is protecting his rights along with everyone else.
Um - sorta. It is more asking for some consistency and logic.
Which parts of those laws, specifically, even if they were meant to target minorities at the time, would you repeal today? If the answer is “none of them” then how is your position any different than when those other laws were passed, even if your reason for wanting those laws doesn’t stem from racism?
Yes, I do find it hypocritical to condemn people who passed laws in the 60s if you think they are actually good laws we should have. How is that NOT hypocrisy?
It seems to me almost self-evident that in recent years the NRA has become another avenue for Russian trolling in the US. The “official” membership is vastly larger than the subscribership of the (free) membership periodicals, I assume the bulk is from Russion subscriber bots, and the whole thing is a way that Russians can inject money into our electoral system and infect our politics with the kind of anti-American sentiment Wayne RobesPierre spouts.
2 Likes
We are being consistent. More guns=more dead POC. We don’t want more people killed like Philando Castile was. Also, more guns=more dead people in general, and we’re invested in keeping them alive. That’s our consistency and logic.
And we can criticize their motivations and their methods and focus of enforcement, even if we don’t want to repeal the laws that were carefully written to not be full-on Jim Crow nonsense. The text of the law itself might not be racist, but the instigation was racist, the passing was racist, and the enforcement was and still is racist.
9 Likes
While I’m sure Russian bots have boosted their official ranks in the past few years, the post-1977 NRA has a history of padding its membership rolls with anyone who takes a basic safety course at a shooting range or other venues. I think they also give away memberships with firearms purchases. Any shoddy trick to pretend they’re bigger than they are.
5 Likes
Yeah, I used to compete in target shooting and if you want your score counted you have to be a member of the NRA. Lots of people I competed with were fine with that, but some, including myself, were not.
3 Likes
I suppose it is simplistic logic, but I concede if there were magically no guns, you obviously couldn’t use them on someone.
If one can be for these laws today, does it not stand to think that not everyone who voted on say the GCA of 1968 did so for racist reasons, but for the same “common senses” reasons one would support it today? It isn’t all or none, there is a mix of reasons often times. At any rate, if one feels so strongly that the laws instigation, passing, and enforcement are all steeped in racism, I am surprised one is still ok with it.
But hey, what do I know, I spend wwwaaayyyyy too much time with “gun-humping murderous fantasies” 
← ETA not your words.
Yeah, it’s almost as if it’s harder to murder people if one doesn’t have a tool specifically designed for it ready at hand! Like, oh, say, Australia, or the UK, or most of the rest of the world.
Yes, that does indeed make sense–in much the same way that I’m sure that some people voted for the PATRIOT Act as a result of common sense reasons without questioning any of the deeper motivations behind the people who had the thing written up, drafted and ready to go, and who never stopped to ask “Hey, how are these new powers going to be used in day-to-day life and enforcement?”
Because the way that these laws are worded are not full-on Jim Crow. They still have the effect, when applied universally, of getting guns out of the hands of those unfit to wield them, but have the actual effect of disproportionate enforcement on minorities.
The Mulford Act banned public carry–but it was always used to hassle and criminalize African-Americans carrying guns, while White people were not touched. So we can go, “Hey, we approve of getting guns out of public spaces, but we also see that it’s being used unevenly for structural racism. Get rid of the racism.” The 1968 law was to keep criminals from having access to guns–but since so many African-Americans are sent to prison at some point in their lives, it has a structural racism effect, even though the law itself is not written in that fashion.
It’s all part of a structure of racism that contextually has other effects. We can want the baby without tossing out the bathwater–or, perhaps more illustratively, we can replace the lead pipe in the bathroom with PVC, without going “Oh, the whole plumbing system was built on a poison, I guess we’ll rip it out entirely and not bother replacing it.” Which, you know, is what you’re wanting.
Me, I want a world where my hypothetical future children and actual nieces and nephews won’t be afraid of assembling outside during a fire drill, where I can attend a movie or concert without having to figure out where the best cover is, where my friends can attend their nightclubs without having to do the same, and where minorities can assemble without worrying about being carried out in body bags because of a single White Guy with a grudge.
Meanwhile, you want to make it easier for those White Guys to get guns under the guise of combating racism–by repealing laws where the problem is not the text of the law itself, but the racist way in which the militarized enforcement and compliance caste applies those laws to the populace.
10 Likes
You keep saying that. But frankly since that take over the NRA hasn’t really supported any gun control law. That’s sort of the salient part of that shift, and the leadership infight it capped of. The switch from un-involved sporting organization to full on political lobby group. Then to a full on hard right lobby group that opposes all fire arms regulation.
They don’t get a high five for coincidentally not supporting racistly motivated gun laws. And they’re certainly more than a little involved in that whole dog whistle racism thing.Very big into the guns for home/personal protection thing. And what do you need protection from? “Urban thugs” and illegal immigrants.
8 Likes
