For some blacks, gun control raises echoes of segregated past

[The Straight Story]

Eight years ago, Rick Ector had just pulled into his driveway in Detroit after work when two men approached him. They asked for money and pulled out a gun. He handed over his cash, and they left. Though he reported the incident, to his knowledge, the two men haven’t been caught.

"If I survive this incident, I will no longer depend on the police, who have a legal obligation to protect me," Ector recalls thinking. "I had to do what I needed to do to protect myself."

Ector had never before owned a gun. After the incident, he not only legally armed himself; he became a certified firearms instructor and a National Rifle Training counselor; he now runs the Rick’s Firearm Academy in Detroit.

...

But Ector and other African-Americans who share his views on firearms see gun rights as a civil rights issue and tighter regulations as a way to keep power out of the hands of minorities.

"Gun control has racist roots and when you deny people the opportunity to own a gun and to protect themselves, that is the epitome of racism," he told Al Jazeera.

His thinking, he says, is shaped by America’s segregated past. As far back as the 1860s, gun control has been used to keep arms out of the hands of black people. After the Civil War, a group of discriminatory laws known as the Black Codes limited the civil liberties—like the right to bear arms—of newly freed slaves.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/1/for-some-blacks-guncontroldebateraisesechoesofsegregatedpast.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. It is refreshing to hear this point of view. It's not a new POV, by any means.

But it's not often heard amid the groundless claims that the second amendment was written for racist purposes.

It never was true and, in fact, it's utility today is quite the opposite.

Recommended.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. This is traceable to Article XV in the first Black Code (The Code Noir)

from a 1685 edict of Louis XIV regarding regarding the islands of French America.

An exception was available in Article XV

"for those who have been sent by their masters to hunt and who are carrying either a letter from their masters or his known mark."

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/335/

[Electric Monk]

3. You're playing games if you're pretending this has anything to do with high cap mags or bump-stocks.

Which, of course, is the reason why you posted this. You know it, and I know it. Gun nuts want no regs whatsoever. That's what makes them nuts.

Now go smoke a breast-feeding pitbull at Olive Garden

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. No, "you're playing games if you're pretending this has anything to do with high cap mags or

bump-stocks."

And to borrow more of what you said, "Which, of course, is the reason why you posted this. You know it, and I know it."

[derby378]

6. Relax - it's just another false-flag operation

Get used to the sneers from the gun-control lobby - it means we're doing something right.

[The Straight Story]

11. So, in other words, you won't address the guy's thoughts/views but attack me instead

That helps the debate (and why are we debating rights anyways).

[Electric Monk]

12. I don't believe your motives in posting this are genuine, is what it comes down to. nt

[The Straight Story]

14. My motives are not important to the discussion

But if you want to dismiss and not discuss an issue because of motives that is fine - does nothing to add to the conversation/debate.

I posted about this guys and his views. If you think he is wrong and such that is fine, should not be about me.

[rdharma]

39. We know WHY you posted it. nt

[NYC_SKP]

52. rdharma, how bout you explain to us WHY you think he posted this.

Because I don't know what you're talking about.

[NutmegYankee]

62. Look in a mirror.

Your motives are pretty obvious as well.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. For MOST blacks, I think this rings true! I'll put it this way...

I don't think Stand Your Ground laws were meant to apply to us. And I damn sure don't believe that the Teabaggers and the NRA would be having a conniption over black folk losing their gun ownership rights.

It's all about white people arming themselves to "protect themselves against government," i.e., us knee-grows!!!

[madinmaryland]

7. The NRA and the rest of the gun-nutters have no interest in defending

the rights of those who are not lily white. You're last sentence sums it up perfectly.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Actually, they have a history

Of reaching out to train and help minorities arm themselves.

Here in NC almost all gun control laws on the state level were passed with the intent of disarming minorities, some even remain on the books.

There were NRA charted gun clubs thy existed primarily to train blacks how to handle firearms to resist the KKK. A great example is in Monroe NC where the NAACP and NRA collaborated to resist the KKK.

I am not an NRA member but have been to NRA classes, they had no issue with my skin color, and one was led by a Latino.

Lets save the accusations of racism for places where they are valid, there is enough real racism to go around without attributing it to people just because you don't like something else they stand for.

[rdharma]

40. Sure they do!

"Out to train and help minorities arm themselves."

Sorry, but as a minority business woman........ I don't believe you.

[NYC_SKP]

55. rdharma: Truth. Blacks have depended on the Second Amendment. Your rofl smiley notwithstanding.

Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power

The first African American civil rights leader to advocate armed resistance to racial oppression and violence, Robert F. Williams was born on February 26, 1925 in Monroe, North Carolina. The fourth of five children born to Emma Carter Williams and John Williams, Williams quickly learned to navigate the dangers of being black in the Deep South. The Ku Klux Klan was a powerful and feared force in Monroe, and the community where Williams grew up experienced regular brutalization at the hands of whites.

snip




Becoming a Leader

In 1956, Williams took over leadership of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which was close to disbanding due to a relentless backlash by the Ku Klux Klan. Williams canvassed for new members and eventually expanded the branch from only six to more than 200 members.

Williams also filed for a charter from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and formed the Black Guard, an armed group committed to the protection of Monroe’s black population. Members received weapons and physical training from Williams to prepare them to keep the peace and come to the aid of black citizens, whose calls to law enforcement often went unanswered.

With his fellow NAACP members, Williams waged local civil rights campaigns and brought the conditions of the Jim Crow South to the attention of the national and international media. Williams led an ongoing fight to integrate the local public swimming pool and opposed the condemnation of two young African American boys for the “crime” of kissing a white girl during a harmless child’s game—a cause that had been deemed too controversial for the national NAACP.



more at the link:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

That you reject and diminish this fact is quite pathetic.

[Eleanors38]

20. Hmm. You seem to confirm the OP's contention....

The Codes, Antebellum laws in the South, and more explicitly the Jim Crow laws (lasting well into to 20th Century) were all designed to keep blacks unarmed. Problem is, the Jim Crow laws have collapsed, and firearms can be carried concealed throughout the South within "shall issue" laws, meaning any black, Asian-, Cuban-, Mexican-American, etc. can obtain a permit if he/she is of age, has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent, and has no felony conviction.

Put another way, M.L.K. could not get a permit immediately after his house was bombed (he tried, you know), but in all likelihood you could by taking and passing a short course.

You seem to share Tavis Smiley's belief that the NRA would radically change its position if blacks suddenly took up arms. I see no evidence for this.

There is nothing at all keeping you from arming for self-defense, except in a few city & state laws which restrict all but the wealthy from firearm ownership.

The record is very clear on this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. I believe that the NRA and most racist whites don't give a shit about 2nd Amendment

Rights for black Americans. I don't care about Tavis Smiley.

[Eleanors38]

67. If the NRA "didn't give a shit about 2nd Amendment

rights for black Americans," then its legislative actions seem most peculiar.

Not sure about Smiley myself, but his stance on guns & the NRA is even more peculiar.

[Major Nikon]

66. If the gun homicide rate for whites equaled the gun homicide rate for blacks...

We would have the strongest gun control laws in the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/

[Paladin]

8. The racists are huddled over there on the political far right.....

....the same place where the gun militants hang out. But you already knew that, didn't you?

[The Straight Story]

10. Gun Militants. Is that like abortion militants? You know, people who stand by their rights

and get tired of people who keep trying to slowly remove them?

Here I thought progressives cared about individual rights and protecting freedoms.

[Paladin]

15. Yeah, gun militants are a lot like abortion militants, as a matter of fact.

And spare me the "progressives gotta accept everything and everybody" bullshit, OK? It's a transparent tactic that doesn't work anymore. You're not fooling anybody.

[Eleanors38]

25. After getting your own Castle Bansalot, free use of GD,

and free sway to personally attack other DUers, after all that, I don't think you are convincing anyone at all. Part of the reason is those personal attacks.

Again: The Second Amendment RIGHT is a right most LIBERALS support.

[The Straight Story]

27. I work on principles

If your principle on a issue is not one you apply to another that, to me, means you don't really support the ideal behind the principle.

I applied a principle to two items - guns and abortion. I am consistent on how I feel in both cases because I stand behind the ideals. Some people SAY they are for that ideal but then turn away from it on a topic they don't like and refuse to apply it equally.

You see two words and topics. I see one principle behind them both.

In a legal sense they call that a value judgement - you extract the core value and apply it to other items and test to see if a person really believes in the value they are espousing.

Funny how many people don't actually have that value but apply it only when it is convenient to their personal cause and then abandon it the second someone else uses that value in a venue they don't like.

[Paladin]

29. Google "NRA, Black Panthers," read what you find, then talk to me about principles.

The NRA was more than willing to deprive black people of guns---so take your lofty talk of principles over to Wayne LaPierre and get back to us with the results, OK?

[Lee-Lee]

31. For blance

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskeptics/2012/12/20/the-nra-the-kkk-and-the-2nd-amendments-black-history/

Here in NC the NRA and NAACP cooperated in the 60's to train blacks to defend themselves.

[Paladin]

43. You call that "blance"? (nt)

[The Straight Story]

32. Um... don't like the NRA, don't own a gun, don't care what they think

I can't have an abortion either, and am not gay but support gay marriage.

Why do people assume if you are for something you are part of something? Seems rather shallow.

[Lee-Lee]

35. They do that because it it easier to attack a group, and ignore people as individuals

To debate a person means they have to actually look at that persons argument and reality.

If they attribute you to a group they can then attribute to you whatever qualities they assign, rightly or wrongly, to that group and dismiss you as an individual. Then they can more easily attack the group and dismiss the individual.

It is, in the end, the same way racists think.

[The Straight Story]

37. Yeah, see a lot of weird things like that here on DU, example:

If I say that people who follow Islam are dangerous and we need to watch them (like after 9/11) people would jump all over me for judging the many by the acts of the few.

If I point out that over 99% of gun owners don't use their guns to harm people and that folks are judging the many based on the few no one hears that and instead says I am a gun lover, nra humper, etc and so on and don't get that they are using a tactic they personally decry elsewhere.

[Lee-Lee]

38. Yup. You see anti-gun folks here use the tactics racists use elsewhere

They find every single story they can find about gun misuse, then immediately attribute that behavior to every gun owner, the NRA, "isolated incident" comments, etc.

You see racists doing the same thing other places with crime done by minorities. The exact same thing.

[Paladin]

41. Lots of differences between gun OWNERS and gun MILITANTS.

That's a very real distinction that gun militants try to obscure, all the time. I'm a gun owner, have been for more than 50 years. I'm also a lifelong Democrat and liberal. I've been watching gun militants trying to represent themselves as Democrats and liberals for years now, here at DU. They're hardly ever convincing.

[The Straight Story]

46. Explain to me the term militant in relation to guns

I don't own one, though I did for a time for work. I used to also work in the gun reloading industry and sold gun dies to people all over the world from a .17 hornet to 20mm Lahti.

Our most popular was the .50 cal BMG as many people owned one and would go target shooting with them.

I met and dealt with people all over the world who were into guns, from South Africa (Gold reef city) to Italy and Australia. Those most into guns - from collecting to reloading - we the ones who most hated the people who used guns to hurt others. Guns to them were tools and for fun, not for hurting others.

They were also the ones most concerned that others wanted to remove their guns. They would be, I am guessing, what you would call militant gun owners.

Why is it that the people who have the most guns, use them the most on a regular basis and treat them with respect are the ones we seem to hate the most? The people, the very few people, who use them in crimes are the ones we should focus on and instead of always blaming the gun and such we should be asking why and not how.

Until we resolve the why of people killing others and address those issues the problems we face won't go away. Passing more laws to further restrict people is not really going to fix the core issue.

[The Straight Story]

47. Harvard: Gun control does not decrease violence, study finds

SALT LAKE CITY — Following the tragedies in Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. last year, the national rhetoric revolved around controlling the types of firearms Americans should be legally allowed to own. But a recently highlighted study shows that controlling firearms is actually counterproductive.

In a study published by Harvard University, researchers Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser reviewed the gun laws in several European countries to see if banning firearms would decrease murders and suicides. They found that countries with higher firearm ownership had lower murder rates.

The researchers looked at Russia, which has strict firearm control measure, as a similar country to the United States in murder rates in the 1960s and 70s. However, Russia's murder rates have drastically increased in the years since.

"While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States," the study says. "Between 1998-2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates."

They found that Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all had similar problems, with murder rates increasing despite the absence of firearms. Researchers said "homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings."

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=757&sid=26639259&fm=most_popular

[Hoyt]

56. Actually, this was not a Harvard study. It is some junk published

in a "journal" edited by conservative/libertarian law students. The "study" is not peer reviewed. But it is often quoted on freerepublic and all the major Web sites pandering to gun lovers.

[bettyellen]

57. LOL, check your sourcing dude, that is Freeer bullshit, not a Harvard study.

Jeeze do you EVER actually read the crap you link to? We've seen this before.

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. hit.nail.head

The same sort of idiotic sweeping generalizations that so many of the more fervent controllers employ would get a poster banned if they were applied to most any other group. And to think these gasbags probably consider themselves progressives...

[2ndAmForComputers]

61. Suuuuuuuure.

[The Straight Story]

63. So let me see if I understand your 'progressive' view on this

You believe that ONLY people involved directly with something will care about something?

My friend is gay and would love to get married here in Ohio, My dad and sister both own guns, and I have a daughter who I want to be able to have choices.

Now - let me ask you something, what does it matter at all if I did own a gun? Does that magically make any arguments I make less somehow in your mind (it is apparently important to folks though, which is why I point I don't have one. Some people in their ignorance believe that is the only way a human being would ever stand up for the rights of others is if they have skin in the game directly)?

I am sorry I do not fit your life view of who cares about what. I will live up to it and make sure I no longer support guns, women, or gays, or any other minorities or their rights and will encourage others to do the same so we can all conform to your ideals of how the world is.

Sad and petty minded really, oh...and thanks for offering so much to the discussion with your one word reply.

[2ndAmForComputers]

68. You came to all of this from one word with an elongated vowel?

Wow.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Bilge.

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing racist about gun control and suggesting there is is laughable.

It's true that guns make it easier to protect yourself (c.f. Zimmerman, George).

But the number of lives saved by people protecting themselves with guns when they would otherwise have been killed is almost certainly only a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of Americans - disproportionately many of them black, if you insist on dragging race into an issue that \actually has little to do with it - killed by guns every year.

[madinmaryland]

17. +1,000,000

[Lee-Lee]

18. You could not be more wrong

Not sure where you are from, but here in the south gun control has, historically, been all about racism.

My ancestors as natives here were once forbidden from owning arms as "nonwhites" and a such subject to much more oppression they could not resist.

We still have a law on the books here in NC requiring every handgun purchase to have a permit, good for only a single use. The sheriff issues them and is given enough latitude that the law can, was, and still is used to deny that right to minorities. That was the intent when it was passed, like so many Jim Crow laws it was racist without mentioning race.

I can still remember when I was growing up the sheriff in my county required a letter of recommendation from a person of "good moral character" with an application for a permit. Of course it was understood that "good moral character"=white male. So when my dad wanted a pistol he had to get one of the white guys at the VFW to give him "white approval".

There have even been court cases here in the south where the government admits gun control laws were never meant to be applied to whites.

Many laws were some at making gun ownership more expensive, denying it to poor people- AKA blacks

No, gun control is quite often about race. Especially in the south. Maybe your life experience has been privileged enough to never experience it, but that is reality and it was a harsh reality for minorities subjected to it and were left unable to resist the armed KKK.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I am sure there exist people who support gun control for racist reasons.

Just as there are certainly people who oppose it for racist reasons.

But that does not mean that it's in any way a racist cause.

[Lee-Lee]

23. When a large number of gun control laws have been about disarming minorities

Yes, you can still see it as a racist cause.

When my family has historically either been denied arms or made to gain approval from whites before exercising their rights, only because of skin color, do you expect me to not see the vestiges of racism in gun control today?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. You can see it as whatever you like, but it isn't.

Taking guns away from black people but not white people is racist.

Taking guns away from everyone is not racist.

It's that simple.

[ileus]

16. The 2A is for everyone, before anything else matters we need the

ability to defend ourselves. Food, Water, Housing, Healthcare....none of that matters if you can't protect yourself against those that wish you harm.

[madinmaryland]

19. As a society we should not be required to be continually armed ready for attack as you suggest.

Without food, water, housing, healthcare, there probably would be a need for the NRA defined 2A as we would live in a Somalian anarchy.

[Paladin]

22. +1000.

That "Somalian anarchy" status is the stuff of dreams for a lot of the gun-centrics. It's like those people who are getting their bunkers stocked for Armageddon---they can't wait for it to happen, so they can put their guns to what they consider to be their highest and best use. Pretty creepy.....

[Eleanors38]

28. Okay, Paladin. What % of gun-owners is preparing for "Armageddon,"

and "can't wait for it to happen?" Let's see some figures. Make it easy on yourself: What is the % here on DU?

[Paladin]

30. Ah, yes: The old "gimme a precise percentage" gambit.

OK, here it is: 67.4815489%. Approximately.

[Lee-Lee]

33. In other words

You are just stereotyping and throwing things out there regardless of accuracy.

Sounds like typical right wing behavior.

[Eleanors38]

26. "Required?" Who is requiring that?

[rdharma]

34. Sensible gun laws are "racist"?

Huh? Really?

These guys are so easy to spot!

[Lee-Lee]

36. Gun Control advocates here in NC support the Pistol Purchase Permit System

Despite the fact that it is clearly a Jim Crow law that was historically used, and very possibly still is in some counties, to deny the right to minorities in a very disparate fashion.

That gun control advocates were on record in NC just this year supporting keeping a Jim Crow law on the books says a lot. Even more so to me when I have seen it affect my family.

Maybe your life have been such that you have been privileged enough to not see it- but the racist root of gun control here in the south is very real.

[rdharma]

42. As a minority business woman in NC...... I can tell you that it has nothing to do with Jim Crow.

But you already know that...... don't you?!!!

[Lee-Lee]

48. You are wrong

Study some history.

Heck, even in the 80's in Gaston County as a minority you couldn't get a purchase permit without a letter of recommendation from a white person. I clearly remember my father having to get one of the white guys at the VFW to wrote him a letter, and wondering what he would do if it wasn't for his membership there.

[Lee-Lee]

50. I see what you are up to now

But if you want to play this little game of "attack the messenger when you can't debate facts" I will play.

My dad is Filipino. He came to the US under the program that let a certain number of residents of the Philippines enlist in the Navy. My mom was Lumbee. Interestingly, right here in NC the Lumbee people have a long history of being barred the ability to carry arms that led to oppression, and a proud history of using arms to resist the KKK. The more I learn of my heritage the more I see, in it, the role gun control in the south has played in racist oppression on non-white peoples.

Not that it matters much. A Jim Crow law is still a Jim Crow law, no matter how you cut it.

[Kingofalldems]

44. I love that story.

I have found gun control advocates to be anti-racist.

Gun fanciers are quite often all about racism.

[rdharma]

45. I've been in the shooting sports for years.

And you are 100% correct!

[Dawson Leery]

51. On the two choice ballot, firearm owners break 40/60 for Republicans.

That 40/60 divide is far below what most believe would believe.

The image which the NRA has pushed (on behalf of the gun industry) is one needs a gun because the world is going to hell. They cater to the suvivalist/McVeigh/Weaver types.

[NutmegYankee]

60. So you feel we should just fuck over the 40% who vote Democratic?

That's a lot of good loyal Democrats.

[Hoyt]

54. I support gun control that applies to everyone equally. Look at NRA leadership if you think

they give a darn about minorities - Teddy Nugent, Grover Norquist, John Bolton, Ollie North, gun profiteers who love the type racial fear in Zimmerman trial, etc. Heck, the incoming NRA Prez - big Jim Porter from Alabama - is as racist as they come.

I agree that gun laws have kept minorities from obtaining guns as easily as whites, but that is easy to avoid in the future - enact laws that crack down on all guns. Of course, the impact will be greatest on the right wing gun loving bigots, who are the ones accumulating the most gunz, carrying them in public and spouting hatred.

[Loudly]

58. An opposing viewpoint:

[CreekDog]

65. this kind of story doesn't make me feel generous