The racist roots of gun control.....

[AzWorker]

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4mJW-kjSc


Part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwueChZUgf8&feature=related

[baldguy]

1. RW NRA propaganda.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

[lawodevolution]

2. Not NRA. do you have any other lies?

[baldguy]

5. You think one flavor of fascist is different from another?

[AzWorker]

6. Hmmm...

" Joseph Goebbels would be proud. "

It is put out by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, AKA JPFO.

Truth hurts, I've no doubt that it is hard to swallow for those that are so invested in a cause that has roots in racist tyranny.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Historical facts bother you that much eh?

[gejohnston]

8. Is that your default setting?

First, you violated Godwin's Law. Besides, Goebbels was a dupe compared to Madison Ave.
Interesting thing about history, you learn that the real world, the societies in that world, and the people that make up those societies, are far more complex and nuanced than any comic book label placed on them. That is the one of the two constants of history. The other is that history repeats itself.

some reading homework:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

I agree with http://faculty.sulross.edu/rkessler/">Raymond G. Kessler http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1983.tb00305.x/abstract">that gun control is fundamentally conservative or reactionary instead of liberal and serves various conservative political purposes.

(1) increase citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased police powers and abuse; (2) help prevent opposition to the government; (3) facilitate repressive action by government and its allies; (4) lesson the pressure for major or radical reform; and (5) can be selectively enforced against those perceived to be a threat to government.

[one-eyed fat man]

9. The truth is

For over a 100 years the KKK was the "action wing" of the Democratic Party. Democratic Party's tie to gun control began in the Reconstruction South to deny free Blacks guns. The Fourteenth Amendment was written as a result of those times. The link between the Party and the Klan was so great that the 1924 Democratic National Convention ended with a massive cross-burning.

The Ku Klux Klan, a relic of post-Civil War Reconstruction, was resurrected after the 1915 release of D.W. Griffith's very popular motion picture The Birth of a Nation. After World War I, the popularity of the Klan surged, and it became a political power in many regions of the United States, particularly in the South. It was also popular in the border states, the Mountain States, and the West. Its local political strength gave it a major role in the 1924 Democratic Party National Convention (DNC). Klan delegates opposed the nomination of New York Governor Al Smith because Smith was a Roman Catholic. Smith campaigned against William Gibbs McAdoo, who had the support of most Klan delegates. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan.

The much of the leadership of Democratic party were staunch defenders of the Ku Klux Klan, prohibition, and fundamentalism. One of the most influential was Homer Cummings, once Chairman of the DNC under Wilson, later to be Attorney General under FDR and responsible for the first Federal gun laws. During the 1924 Convention Cummings backed McAdoo.



"Urban," "inner-city," "gang-banger," "what works in Chicago," are simply the modern code words used to target a population the stalwarts of gun control wishes were "controlled" better since 1865.

[spin]

27. Great post. Unfortunately it's the truth....

1924 Democratic National Convention

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake,<1> held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first major party national convention that saw the name of a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan. John W. Davis, initially an outsider, eventually won the presidential nomination as a compromise candidate following a virtual war of attrition between front-runners William Gibbs McAdoo and Al Smith.

***snip***

Ku Klux Klan

The Ku Klux Klan, a relic of post-Civil War Reconstruction, was resurrected after the 1915 release of D.W. Griffith's very popular motion picture The Birth of a Nation. After World War I, the popularity of the Klan surged, and it became a political power in many regions of the United States, particularly in the South. It was also popular in the border states, the Mountain States, and the West. Its local political strength gave it a major role in the 1924 Democratic Party National Convention (DNC). However, its participation was unwelcome by many DNC delegates, such as Catholics from the major cities of the Northeast and Midwest. The tension between pro- and anti-Klan delegates produced an intense and sometimes violent showdown between convention attendees from the states of Colorado and Missouri. Klan delegates opposed the nomination of New York Governor Al Smith because Smith was a Roman Catholic. Smith campaigned against William Gibbs McAdoo, who had the support of most Klan delegates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

The Democratic Party has changed a lot over the years. Unfortunately many progressive Democrats still favor draconian gun control as it would effectively disarm the minority poor in our nation. The racist roots still exist today but are well disguised. In New York City today the rich, famous and influential can obtain permits to own and even carry firearms, the middle class and the poor face almost insurmountable hurdles.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Did the NRA write the Dred Scott Decision?

It contains this passage, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney (emphasis added):

http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html

Page 60, US 417

More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went...

[Euromutt]

31. Propaganda is information disseminated for the purpose of influencing opinion

The information disseminated is not necessarily untrue.

[baldguy]

33. The JPFO purports that since Nazis had gun control laws, and liberals want gun control laws;

Therefor liberals are Nazis. And liberals must be racists.

I suppose you think that's true?

[one-eyed fat man]

34. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

That is the full name of the Nazi Party, in English, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and that Nazi political strategy was explicitly based on combining the appeal of socialism with that of nationalism (thus the choice of name). Once in power, the Nazis even went so far as to institute a Four Year Plan for running the German economy, modeled in large part on the Soviet Union's Five Year Plans.

It is certainly true that much industrial capital remained formally under private ownership under the Nazis. However, under the Four Year Plan and other similar policies, it was primarily the government that determined what goods would be produced, what prices would be charged, and (in many cases) who would be the consumers. "Capitalist" private firms in Nazi Germany played a role far more similar to that of socialist managers of enterprises in the Soviet Union than that of actual capitalists in a market system. The Krupps and others certainly profited greatly under the Nazis, but so too did high-ranking Communist Party enterprise managers in the Soviet Union. Neither, however, detracted from the state's ultimate control over economic production.

The fact that the Nazis pursued socialist policies does not in and of itself discredit socialism, any more than Hitler's apparent commitment to vegetarianism discredits the case against eating meat. It is just all the socialists who cannot come to grips with the fact the that far-reaching state control over the economy was an essential element in Nazi policy, without which Hitler could not have carried out his plans for conquest and mass murder. It also helped quiesce potential German opposition to Nazi policies; both by imposing state control on economic resources that any opposition movement would need to support itself, and by "buying off" potential opponents through welfare state handouts. To appeal to the working class and socialists, the party promoted measures that would redistribute income, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

The concentration of economic power in the hands of the state does not always lead to atrocities as extreme as Hitler's. But it does significantly increase the risk that these types of abuses will occur.

[Euromutt]

37. You suppose incorrectly

No huge surprise there. Personally, I find the JPFO's primary schtick--the supposed similarities between the Gun Control Act of 1968 and weapon laws in force under the Nazi regime--more than a little tiresome, not least because it's historically inaccurate; the German weapons law predated the Nazi regime by five years, having been instituted by the Weimar republican government in 1928, and that was a considerable loosening compared to the previous situation, which was that private firearms ownership was completely outlawed in order to comply with the terms of the Versailles Treaty.

But none of that detracts from the fact that gun control in the United States has, on numerous occasions, been adopted or enforced in a racist and/or classist manner; to prevent only the "have-nots" from possessing firearms while the leaving the ability of the "haves" (and their agents) secure.

[baldguy]

39. The libel is that liberals are racist for supporting gun control.

That is a lie. Yes, The Nazis had gun control laws. They also had laws against murder and robbery, which are "similar" to present-day American laws against murder and robbery. Are supporters of those laws racists as well?

Yes, American racists - nominally Democrats - have in the past supported racist laws. Do you know what the Democratic party did with those people? WE KICKED THEM OUT OF THE PARTY! Since the '50s and '60s, American racists have found a very comfortable home in the GOP.

American racists and GOP gun worshipers have formed an alliance that unfortunately is all too common in the Right Wing: their prejudices feed off one another & support each other, and the rest of us suffer because of it. If more guns are distributed in urban areas (and RW gun worshipers are happy), more minorities will be killed (and the racists are happy), which generates more fear in the general population (and GOPrs are happy), which in turn puts more guns in circulation. Rinse, and repeat

For RW gun worshipers and their racist allies, it's a win-win. The only obstacles to this fascist heaven are the people living in the communities most effected by this horror. It's no coincidence that the people living in urban areas consistently vote in favor of the most restrictive gun laws. It's not the "haves" imposing their will on the "have nots", it's people in cities trying to keep their children alive.

The video in the OP discounts & ignores this very human desire because the push in favor of gun control comes from mostly urban communities. How racist is that?

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Huh?

"...what the Democratic party did with those people? WE KICKED THEM OUT OF THE PARTY!"

When? Robert Byrd? George Wallace? Lester Maddox? Dixiecrats? George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. Strom Thurmond switched, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Democrats!

You seem quite annoyed that anyone dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, as that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the southern GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like it or not, for well over a hundred years the Klan really was the action wing of the Democratic Party. Joined at the hip like the IRA and Sinn Fein.

[baldguy]

41. So, using your "logic" Jessie Jackson is a member of the KKK

And Michelle Bachmann signing a statement saying that blacks were better off as slaves than as free people isn't a big deal.

Your logic is bullshit.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. No, it is your denial that the Democratic Party

has had a long history of racism. I have no doubt there are racists in BOTH parties. What you refuse to admit is that racism was instituional and an integral part of the Democratic Party from the end of the Civil War onwards.

There is no modern equivalent to Woodrow Wilson at the White House screening of "The Birth of a Nation" declaring that "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so true... a presentation of history that would transform every man in the audience into a good Democrat!"

The Ku Klux Klan, was resurrected after the 1915 release of D.W. Griffith's very popular motion picture "The Birth of a Nation." After World War I, the popularity of the Klan surged, and it became a political power in many regions of the United States, not just in the South. Its local political strength gave it a major role in the 1924 Democratic Party National Convention. Indiana, for example, had a higher rate of membership in the Klan during the 20's and 30's than any of 11 states of the Confederacy. No Democrat made it to the statehouse with the approval of the Klan.

The Republicans may have their racist buffoons like Bachmann but I don't see they will have ended one of their National Conventions with a cross burning like the Democratic Party has.

As for your claim that the Democratic Party threw racists out, the only time the issue came up at a National Convention, it failed. Homer Cummings, William McAdoo and the Klan prevailed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention#KKK_platform_plank

The second dispute of the convention revolved around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party's platform. Klan delegates defeated the platform plank in a series of floor debates.

To celebrate, tens of thousands of hooded Klansmen, joined by hundreds of Klan delegates to the convention, rallied, burned crosses, urged violence and intimidation against African Americans. Thus forever ensuring that the 1924 Democratic National Convention be better known by its approbation, the "Klanbake."

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. I find the constant drive to throw information like that down the Memory Hole telling.

And what it tells me about the supporters of gun control that deny history is not a bit flattering...

[baldguy]

45. What's telling is that people who oppose gun control and their Right Wing allies

always end up denying the rights of urban & mostly black communities to govern themselves. The Right Wings' history of race relations isn't just unflattering - it's horrific. And in the 21st century those who oppose gun control are Right Wingers.

[east texas lib]

49. What's even more telling is supporting gun control and standing with these guys...

The Truth About Gun Control And Partisanship


Ever since Obama was elected to the White House, conservatives and gun enthusiasts have been screaming about how likely Barak Obama is to take away peoples firearms. People talk of the "Clinton ban" which restricted assault weapons in 1994 and claim another Democrat in the White House is bad news for gun owners.

But is this truthful? Are Democrats more for gun control than Republicans? We examine historical and recent legislation to reveal that a lot of what people are saying is total BS...

Reagan's administration passed more restrictive gun laws than any other administration (including the dubiously-named "Firearm Protection Act of 1986 which banned citizens owning automatic weapons without special permission). And the "Clinton ban" was actually named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary after James Brady was shot by a nutjob.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation?s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

The ominous Assault Weapons Ban that passed in 1994 was a key part of H.R. 3355, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Despite some people saying the bill was authored by Joe Biden, they're wrong. The author was Rep. Jack Brooks from Texas. Biden wasn't even a sponsor. Right wing gun enthusiasts claim Democrats are the bad guys, trying to take away their guns, but an examination of the voting record shows nothing of the sort.

In the House of Representatives, the vote was not even close. A "verbal vote" was cast so there is not even a record in the House of who voted for/against. There was not enough opposition to even require more detailed voting processes.

In the Senate, the story is much the same, but the senators' votes are on record, and we can see in no-uncertain terms that the Republicans supported the assault weapons ban just as much as the democrats. Here's how the actual vote went down:

Number of Democrats voting for the AWB: 50/53 (94.3%)
Number of Republicans voting for the AWB: 45/47 (95.7%)

Yes, among Republicans in the Senate, a higher percentage supported the AWB than Democrats!

Republicans:
Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY)

Democrats:
Howell Heflin (AL) Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Dale Bumpers, David Pryor (AR) Barara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein (CA), Max Baucus (MT), J. Exon, J. Kerrey (NE), Richard Bryan, Harry Reid (NV), William Bradley, Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Jef Bingaman (NM), Daniel Moynihan (NY), John Glenn, Howard Metzenbaum (OH), David Boren (OK), Harris Wofford (PA), Claiborne Pell (RI), Ernest Hollings (SC), Tom Daschle (SD), Harlan Matthews, James Sasser (TN), Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman (CT), Joe Biden (DE), Bob Graham (FL), Sam Nunn (GA), Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye (HI), Carol Braun (IL), Thomas Harkin (IA), Wendell Ford (KY), John Breaux, John Johnston (LA), George Mitchell (ME), Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes (MD), Edward Kennedy, John Kerry (MA), Carl Levin, Don Riegle (MI), Paul Wellstone (MN), Pat Leahy (VT), Charles Robb (VA), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller (WV), Herbert Kohl (WI)

Republicans voting against:
David Durenberger (MN),Mark Hatfield (OR)

Democrats voting against:
Paul Simon (IL), Russell Feingold (WI)

Not voting: Byron Dorgan - Democrat (ND)

Isn't calling that "The Clinton Ban" disingenuous?

http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1

You're in good company!

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. "What's telling is that people who oppose abortion controls and their Left Wing allies

always end up denying the rights of rural & mostly white communities to govern themselves."

I guess that saying is true:

A left jackboot up the ass feels no different than a right jackboot up the ass...

[gejohnston]

46. over simplify much?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

Interesting thing about history, you learn that the real world, the societies in that world, and the people that make up those societies, are far more complex and nuanced than any comic book label placed on them. That is the one of the two constants of history. The other is that history repeats itself.

You seem to have an oversimplified if not comic book view of some things if not the world.

American racists and GOP gun worshipers have formed an alliance that unfortunately is all too common in the Right Wing: their prejudices feed off one another & support each other, and the rest of us suffer because of it. If more guns are distributed in urban areas (and RW gun worshipers are happy), more minorities will be killed (and the racists are happy), which generates more fear in the general population (and GOPrs are happy), which in turn puts more guns in circulation. Rinse, and repeat

What "gun worshipers" are those? What prejudices feeds off of the racists? The guns in the hands of the drug dealers and gangsters have nothing to with us, the NRA, or most of your other favorite "usual suspects." The problem is not the number of guns, it is who has them. You make it sound like the problem is the target shooter or guy who is tired of getting ripped off. Not how the real world works. The problem is the drug gangs killing each other and stray bullets hitting innocents. The NRA is not for it nor do the celebrate it. The VPC on the other hand, not so sure. They seem to do a lot of grave dancing. The real problem is the drug war and and those who put the gun buying in their hands.
sounds like you have one that feeds off of the classists.

For RW gun worshipers and their racist allies, it's a win-win. The only obstacles to this fascist heaven are the people living in the communities most effected by this horror. It's no coincidence that the people living in urban areas consistently vote in favor of the most restrictive gun laws. It's not the "haves" imposing their will on the "have nots", it's people in cities trying to keep their children alive.

Another amendment to Goodwin's Law: Fascists, Communist, Socialist have specific meanings. Misuse them, you lose.
How is it a win for "gun worshipers"? Do people consistently vote for restrictive gun laws or is it that is the only choice they have in politicians? Is it because they naively believe politicians who use such theater because they can not admit that they can do nothing? Or is it that some of those people are drug users that scapegoat the farmer in Montana because they lack the brains or honesty to look in the mirror and recognized that they contribute to the problem more than the "gun culture"

[baldguy]

47. You've exposed yourself.

[gejohnston]

48. Exposed myself as what?

Someone who does not shed tears when gangsters, sociopathic capitalism at its worst, kill each other? I did that several posts ago, you missed it. If you are saying that makes me a racist, then you are assuming that all or most drug dealers and gangsters are black and brown people. If that is the case, then you been watching too many movies or....Crips and Bloods have white members. The Hells Angels, Pagans, Outlaws, and the good old fashioned Costra Nostra is almost if not exclusively white. Or are you saying Montana farmer is code for "white guy in the heartland." Not my intent. OK, so I'll change it to farmer in South Carolina. Still scapegoating the rural farmer, target shooter regardless where he lives etc, for actions of organized crime.

[Euromutt]

51. Is that actually the specific claim being made?

Yes, The Nazis had gun control laws. They also had laws against murder and robbery, which are "similar" to present-day American laws against murder and robbery. Are supporters of those laws racists as well?

Did you notice I actually agreed with you on that score? As I pointed out, albeit perhaps not clearly enough, the JPFO's primary claim is historically inaccurate, because the resemblance the GCA of 1968 bears is less to the Nazi-instituted Waffengesetz of 1938, and more to the Waffen- und Munitionsgesetz of 1928, which was instituted under the Weimar Republic. It's precisely because of the insistence on this factually incorrect claim that I cannot take the JPFO entirely seriously.

But as far as the supposed claim "that liberals are racist for supporting gun control," is an alternative argument not that advocates of increased gun control are facilitating racism and classism, even though that is not their intent? That by supporting a particular gun control law, even though you know it's selectively enforced against certain types of people (ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, women, the poor), you're aiding and abetting racism/classism, even though that is not your intent?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. It comes to my attention...

...that gun control in Germany during the late '30s and early '40s was not instituted by the Nazis. I had surmised as much from some readings but I offer this:
1- it is easily concluded that the Nazis benefited from the preexisting statutes...
2- they added to the prior prohibitions to their own ends...

From this I draw about the same conclusions that I would had the laws in question originated with the Nazis.

[provis99]

3. ...

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. .

:rofl:

[DWC]

35. WARNING!

The historical facts about gun control can cause antis to suffer splitting headaches and verbal diarrhea.

Semper Fi,

[jpak]

10. What a stuoid post

:rofl:

[Upton]

12. Look who's talking..

the ATF/DEA supporting poster who spams the board with often edited articles...and whose responses of choice are either "yup" or "GOP/NRA plot"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. You left out "moran". :) n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Yay. Irony is just wonderful. ;) n/t

[ileus]

11. Excellent post...thanks for sharing.

I've seen ones like it posted before but it's always nice having a refresher course.

[Hoyt]

13. So, let's just ban them in public for EVERYONE, including the white guys.

NRA junkies, TBaggers, Republicans, people who train with silhouette targets, etc.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Sure.

We'll have the gestapo see to it. ;)

[DWC]

17. "By definition a slave is a person that is disarmed"

Says it all.

I have saved this post as a political favorite.

History will repeat itself, but only if we allow it.

Semper Fi,

[Hoyt]

18. Then, there are several hundred million "slaves" in this country happily walking around w/o guns.

[ileus]

19. We call them Sheeple....it's more PC that way.

[AzWorker]

20. How ironic...

"Then, there are several hundred million "slaves" in this country happily walking around w/o guns."

Posted by Hoyt
=============================================================================================================


http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/12/us/old-southern-documents-give-lie-to-theory-of-happy-slaves.html


Old Southern Documents Give Lie to Theory of Happy Slaves
Published: June 12, 1994Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Single-Page

For the past three years a history professor has been unearthing thousands of court documents that he says debunk a popular theory about slavery: that wealthy slave owners were a paternalistic lot who treated slaves like children and that enslaved families stayed together while making the most of their lives by singing and telling stories.

The professor, Loren Schweninger of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, says the long-forgotten records of court petitions and pleadings from slaves and their owners tell of lost loves (slaves were forbidden to marry), broken promises and the selling of babies.

For example, Joseph Antoine, a free black in the late 1700's, fell so deeply in love with a Virginia slave that he indentured himself to her master for seven and a half years to gain her freedom. But when the time came to free them both, the master reneged and sold them.

Mr. Antoine sought justice from a chancery court and eventually won. But it was too late. The woman had died enslaved.

The court record that chronicles Mr. Antoine's despair is one of more than 12,500 petitions collected over the past three years by Professor Schweninger from courthouse basements in 10 of the 15 slave-holding states. He has been using $100,000 in grants from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, part of the National Archives, to amass the records, dating from 1775 to 1866.

There was Hannah, an elderly slave in Kentucky who brought only 50 cents at auction in 1830 because of her "age and decrepitude."

And in 1845 in the same state a slave trader sued a man for selling him two babies, a 4-month-old and a 9-month-old, who the trader said were "worth nothing at all" because they were too sick. He had traded a horse, worth about $160, for the babies.

As to the theory of paternalistic owners and happy slaves, Professor Schweninger said: "The harsh realities were different in most cases. The family was under severe, severe strains and the economic aspects are shown so clearly, it's difficult to see the family survive. It's very bleak."

Only one in four white families in the 10 states owned slaves, because they were expensive. Two slaves were often worth more than a man's land, house and all his belongings, according to the records.

[Hoyt]

24. There were no "happy" slaves. But, I don't feel a "slave" when I walk around w/o a gun.

I actually feel quite free, until some TBagger comes walking up with his gun on his hip and a sour look on his face.


The poster above wrote the BS, about slaves.

[spin]

28. I see your point. I don't feel like a free man because I carry a firearm ...

If you don't feel like carrying a firearm, that's perfectly OK with me.

I just can not understand your unreasonable paranoia about people like me that have legal permits to carry and chose to do so.

Perhaps there is some unusual incident in your life that would explain this.

Let me assure you that you could stand on a golf course in the middle of a thunderstorm holding a club extended about your head and you would have far less chance of being shot by someone with a carry permit than being hit by lightning.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. ...there are several hundred million "slaves" in this country...

Actually, no there are not. Since there are only a few hundred million people, total in this country.

[Hoyt]

23. 310,000,000 million plus. Thems the facts -- check it out.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Exactly...

...there are a FEW hundred million people in the US and 80,000,000 (plus) own firearms.
That makes a COUPLE hundred million.


But what's a hundred million or so? ;)

[Hoyt]

26. So, 230,000,000 don't even see the need to own a gun, much less carry one.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Only 1 in 4 Americans...

...own a firearm.

About 1 in 7 of those have a carry permit.

[Euromutt]

32. "Disarmed" is not the same as "unarmed"

If you are unarmed by your own choice, that doesn't make you a slave. Hey, it's by your own choice.

If you're unarmed because someone else disarmed you, particularly under threat of force, that's another thing entirely.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. IMHO...

...if you've been legally barred from acquiring arms, you've been 'disarmed'.

[Euromutt]

38. For all practical purposes, yes (n/t)

[melm00se]

21. NRA propaganda?

Let's do some walking thru the historical record shall we?

Louisiana Black Codes of 1865:

Sec 7: No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.

Mississippi (1865)

CH 4, sec 1: That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. Oh come on now.

Don't be using the "N" word. The NRA is not involved.