Where are the gun rights groups now?

[MinM]

Where are the gun rights groups now?

John White, a black man from Long Island, NY gets a jail term for defending his home when a white mob arrives to harm his son, yet Joe Horn, a white Texan, shoots two people dead on his neighbor’s lawn who weren’t even bothering him? What’s wrong with that picture?

As a black man, just imagine: A gang of white guys show up at your house after 11 p.m., cursing, shouting “ni**er, and threatening to kill your son. You take the old .32 Beretta you inherited from your grandfather, go outside and order the mob off your property. Instead of leaving, one of the white guys refuses to back down and slaps the gun in defiance. What do you think happens next?...

John White, a hardworking man, had brought his family from the Bronx out to the safer suburbs of Miller Place, which is 0.4 percent black. A recent study concluded that Long Island is sadly "the single most segregated suburban community in the United States." Italians and blacks have historically been segregated and in tense relations in the NY area. And obviously some ethnicities can’t get over their past. Cicciaro’s gang wouldn’t have been there in the first place if it hadn’t been for this racial tension and if there hadn't been a racially motivated hoax.

Meanwhile in Texas, Joe Horn, who bragged to the 911 operator about new gun laws just before rushing out of the safety of his own house to shoot down two burglars at his neighbor’s house is freed with no charges. The police arrived only moments later to find the two dead bodies...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Where-are-the-gun-rights-g-by-William-Lawrence-080714-884.html

[kpominville]

1. Cons look at those stories and think

that the black man should not have gotten any jail time since he was defending his home. They want a wild-west America that stems from their core belief of "every man for himself".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Has Mr. White requested legal assistance from a gun rights group?

[fascisthunter]

3. It Was Never about Rights

it's about selling guns and selling a culture for guns.

[SteveM]

4. Your anti-gun agenda trumps anyone's rights? (nt)

[fascisthunter]

7. and your gun nut agenda trumps America's saftey

You can keep yur guns, just don't expect me to go along with your BS rhetoric about rights to own one especially when I know you gun obsessives don't give a damn about the fact that you are making this country a less safer place for those with and without guns. I know folks with guns and they aren't rabid like the cheerleaders here on DU.

Your need for guns is a perfect excuse to own one as a consumer and that's all...saftey from authoritarianism, yet no militia and there is no way in hell you will thwart this government's ability to oppress you. As for feeling unsafe and needing a gun for protection, well, paranoia will do that. It's already happening and I don't see you using your ridiculous rhetoric for all other rights you are losing. Where's the armed rebellion...?

See arms race.... same mentality. Rights? More like bluster.... Guess who profits? Oh and your right to own a gun won't matter as we are already in a fascist police state and now becoming militant... congrats.

Still waiting for you to truly excersise those rights besides just being a bunch of gun hobbyists pushing an agenda on a Democratic/Progressive forum.

[SteveM]

11. Go lance that boil, you're becoming feverish with animosity (nt)

[fascisthunter]

13. not really... just telling you like it is

live with it and try to read the whole post next time.

[SteveM]

16. I am living with it: the right to keep and bear arms is INDIVIDUAL. Got it? (nt)

[krispos42]

18. Same argument BushCo makes

when they argue for taking away other rights.

You can keep yur rights, just don't expect me to go along with your BS rhetoric about keeping rights especially when I know you rights obsessives don't give a damn about the fact that you are making this country a less safer place

Give up your rights for public safety! Give up your rights for public safety! The perception of public safety trumps rights! You'll be safer without them!




I don't buy it from right, and I don't buy it from the left.

[SteveM]

19. More animosity....

First, you and no one else are in a position to say "You can keep yur (sic) guns..." This is a right recognized in the U.S. Constitution. As far as making "...this country a less safer place..." This is pure rhetoric, and you have shown nothing to substantiate this view. Nothing.

You seem to contend that a militia cannot thwart this government. Can you spell "I-R-A-Q?"

As for paranoia, you brought the subject up first, perhaps you can explain what it means? (BTW, I sleep 8+ hours a night.)

You want armed rebellion to defend the other rights? Where are YOU in all this? Sitting on the sidelines?

A reminder: it ain't bluster, it's a right. The Second Amendment. What else in the BOR do you consider "bluster?"

I am curious: you say we are "...already in a fascist police state..." and judging from your rhetoric you wish to restrict your fellow citizens' right to keep and bear arms. Is this correct? If not, explain.

Still waiting? For me? I feel honored. But you should ask yourself if YOU are "...truly exercis those rights..." I've been doing Bill of Rights exercises for years, getting my picture taken by not-so-secret government paparazzi, and making my file fat.

Again, what are YOU doing?

[madinmaryland]

25. Are you implying that Iraq is a threat to this country???

:wtf:

[tburnsten]

26. Not that they are a threat

But that small militias there are doing a fantastic job at thwarting our efforts to keep the peace. They are carrying out a highly successful campaign against our forces, and they are certainly less unified and smaller than an American insurgency under similiar conditions.

[SteveM]

29. Actually, the Iraq war does pose something of a threat to this country...

Obama certainly thinks so! The question turned on whether militias could be an effective force against the government of the U.S. My answer was "Iraq" (and its militias) do pose a threat (certainly on the battlefield).

Between the minutiae of logic and the cover of a New Yorker, we find ourselves without irony when the need is greatest.

[slackmaster]

28. fascisthunter, please take a Quaalude or something

I care a lot about making the country safe. If I thought my owning guns made it less safe, I wouldn't own them.

[derby378]

31. Would you rather be a consumer or a citizen?

The Bush administration wants consumers. My desire is to be a citizen, to make the well-being of this nation my responsibility without having anyone bitch at me for it. And if that means this little progressive keeps a firearm, so be it.

[solinvictus]

58. Blah blah blah, we make the world less safe...

...why don't you live inside a cork-lined room since you want safety so much?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. I didn't see anything "Anti-Gun" in his comment.

What I did see was a pretty fair exposition on the way things work, with everything, in the US.

[SteveM]

15. Way things work? Ignoring the OP's subject to push his agenda?

We are facing two crappy wars, a failing economy, and people on the brink of poverty, and this guy swoops in on the subject of a gun incident to dump his world-view bile, and you don't see animosity against gun owners? It's been going on in this forum for years. There's a lot, a LOT of hatred expressed by some posters toward those defending the individual RKBA.

Please study up on the notion of "gun culture" and find out what it means.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Do you think the video game makers are taking money from the gun lobby?

[tburnsten]

12. The shooting industry is tiny

It accounts for a very small amount of business in the U.S., gun companies just don't make that much money. It's hard to when the goal is to create a product that will outlast multiple generations of user, even the plastic fantastics like Glock and the USP will still be running long after the original purchaser is gone, barring any extreme use or professional shooters like Jerry Miculek. That man wears out Smith and Wesson revolvers in short order!

Anyway I'm a little curious about what you mean, how did you come to that conclusion?

[pipoman]

35. No, its about rights

and because you say it isn't doesn't make it so.

Mr. White shouldn't and wouldn't be charged in at least 40 states for his actions of self defense.

Let's see, do you think the attitude of the law makers and prosecutors on Long Island are more in line with your beliefs or mine. I believe Mr. White is a hero to his family and likely saved their life with his actions. You obviously believe Mr. White is a criminal and should be jailed. You consider Mr. White paranoid for keeping a gun for self defense. Of coarse he had nothing to fear from these good 'ol boys, they were jus' havin' a little fun, huh?

Is there a violence problem in this country or isn't there fascist? Are innocent people victimized by the strong and those who travel in large numbers or not fascist? Was Mr. White and his family in danger or not fascist?

If your answers are, there isn't a violence problem, innocent people are not victimized, and Mr. White wasn't in danger, then you fascist are living on Mars. If your answers are, yes there is a violence problem, innocent people are victimized, and Mr. White indeed was in danger, then please explain how someone who keeps a defensive weapon, like Mr. White, is paranoid?

You fascist are the one who is paranoid and crazy with fear. Your fear is based on hatred of freedom. I believe you are indeed a fascist hunter, hunting for a fascist movement where none exists and attempting to create fascism where ever you go.

Good day, and thank christ you and those constitutional perverts in the DA's office on Long Island are in the tiny minority on this subject.

[iverglas]

41. lemme see here

Yikes, if you, pipoman, were intending to demonstrate feverishness, you did a mighty fine job! How feverish does someone have to be to call another poster at DU a fascist ... lemme count the ways ... well, five, and a couple of things that just aren't very clear at all.


You fascist are the one who is paranoid and crazy with fear. Your fear is based on hatred of freedom.

God damn. George Bush couldn't have said that one better himself, could he?

Yup, DU members hate you for your freedom.

I can see DU members pitying you for your irrationality.

I mean

despise gun militancy and everything it really means and all its real effects
= hate for freedom?

Not what I call rational, myself. And I'm an ENTJ. I know my rational.

[tburnsten]

6. Mr. White's story is very sad

It is really pathetic that the NY district attorneys office decided that this was a case they needed to convict someone on, I am betting that they went after him more to set an example of what happens when people protect themselves on their watch. It is a geographical problem, not a racial one. Mr. White would not have been charged in almost any other state, just as Mr. Horn would have been charged in many other states. And Mr. Horn didn't just go shoot two people who weren't bothering him, they were burglarizing his neighbor's home and the first one he shot was in his yard coming towards him with a crowbar. There was a detective sitting in a car in front of Mr. Horn's house, so it isn't like the Grand Jury didn't have a credible witness to base their decision off of.

It is really despicable that Mr. White was charged at all, let alone convicted, and I hope his conviction is overturned.

[benEzra]

9. Gun rights groups weren't involved in the Joe Horn case, either.

But Mr. White's actions would have been ruled justifiable in most states. It's a travesty that he was convicted, IMO.

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, White would probably have been no-billed even in California

The unregistered gun would have gotten him a misdemeanor at worst.

[krispos42]

10. John White probably should be free, Joe Horn probably should be in jail

While obviously juries have more information available to them than we do from simply reading news reports, I remain unconvinced that Joe Horn, even under the looser Texas laws for defense of self and property, acted within them.

Likewise, I remain unconvinced that John White acted outside of the law. The possibility that racism had influence in the results to some degree exists.



As an aside, and putting on my moderator hat, I would note that OpEdNews.com is listed on DU's list of questionable sites that bear watching.

[tburnsten]

14. Racism could be at play

But I am almost certain that race was less important than the fact that he dared to protect himself with a firearm, cities like NY tend to be pretty touchy about people showing how individuals CAN use a gun effectively to protect themselves while the dispatcher is still asking what address help is needed at.

[SteveM]

17. This makes the most sense in explaining White's predicament...

Since most gun laws are based on racist models, prejudice must figure into any judicial decision; but IMO, the motivation behind most anti-gun law makers is to disarm the private citizen thereby making self-defense nearly impossible.

[tburnsten]

30. The jury also has probably

never been exposed to responsible firearms ownership, so to them, anyone with a gun is a "bad guy" or a cop. Mr. White is not an LEO, so in their eyes the only mold he can possibly fit is that of the "bad guy", which is absolutely ridiculous. I think discretion should be applied more often to many cases, instead of just finding whether or not he shot the man attacking him and had a firearm in violation of NY draconian gun laws/anti-self defense laws they should have looked at whether or not he did anything that was actually wrong. Unless they are really far gone they would have had to come back with an answer of "yes he broke some statutes but the statutes are highly flawed and he did not commit any malicious acts".

[aspergris]

20. shows the difference between NY and Texas

NY does NOT respect the right to self defense

recall they charged bernie goetz too (a jury acquitted him of all except the unlawful carrying of a gun charge)

you CANNOT compare two cases in two DIFFERENT jurisdictions without taking into account that they are DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS

NY state, unfortunately, does not recognize the right to self defense to the extent that the state of Texas does.

Note I live in a very blue state (fortunately) that ALSO (fortunately) has a strongly recognized right to self defense and RKBA

[Longtooth]

21. I think the biggest telling part here is one is in Texas and the other is in New York

[jody]

22. The obvious answer is NY is anti-gun as evident by its most prominent politicians.

[SteveM]

23. Addendum to OP's citation: a refutation on same link...

"New York has draconian laws to legally own pistols in the state. Texas requires a valid state ID to buy a handgun there. I did not even try to bring my handguns into New York, even though I had owned one for over 30 years, because I had not met the 3 year residency requirement to have a pistol permit. I left my handguns in Texas with my brother. MR. WHITE DID NOT HAVE A PISTOL PERMIT." (My emphasis.)


"Texas supports 'castle doctrine' and 'stand your ground' laws of self defense. New York does not and Mr White had not called 911 prior to wielding firearms. I am sure you have heard the 911 audio where Joe Horn stated he was concerned for his safety as well as his neighbor’s property.


"Two different states with two different sets of laws and two different cases with two different outcomes.


"I believe New York should end their useless anti-rights pistol laws. Mr. White should have been able to legally own his handgun and use it to defend himself, his family and his property. Mr. White was needlessly convicted of manslaughter and illegal possession of a handgun because of senseless New York laws against self defense."

(Above quotes from a blogger on the same link cited by OP.)

Kind of puts things in a different perspective (my comment).

[Tejas]

33. You're RUINING it for the Texas-haters

:rofl:

[SteveM]

39. Confusion to the enemy!

[slackmaster]

24. The difference is Mr. White ran afoul of New York's draconian gun and deadly force laws

Once someone has broken the law, even a bad law, there isn't much a civil rights group can do about his individual case. All a gun rights group can do is try to get the law changed so that it's more reasonable.

I believe that Joe Horn's actions are morally wrong, but the local grand jury decided that he was acting within the applicable law. Was racism a factor? Maybe, but neither the Horn case nor the White case has anything to do with gun rights advocacy groups. The op-ed is a lame attempt at guilt by association; utterly without merit since gun rights groups didn't actually do anything for Joe Horn.

I must take issue with one statement in the op-ed piece:

Joe Horn has offered no apology and has no remorse, yet he goes free?

Joe Horn has repeatedly expressed deep regret for what he did.

[aikoaiko]

38. Agreed. And gun rights and self-defense groups have been trying to change NY laws for a long time.

[Tejas]

32. That reporter is a moonbat

"It’s even more appalling, and revealing, that all of the gun rights groups went running to the defense of white Texan Joe Horn, yet not one of them went to the defense of the black man, who was actually defending his family. That certainly says something about their lack of character and integrity. So much for rights and self defense."



Sorry Mr Moonbat, first I've ever heard of the gentleman in NY.


Maybe if his case had gotten more exposure, but noooooooooo.........easier to get on the white-gunowners-don't-care-about-blacks bandwagon AFTER the fact.


Way to go Mr Moonbat!

[AtheistCrusader]

37. I certainly don't recall running to Joe Horn's defense.

Beyond cautioning people not to assume guilt, with incomplete facts, and before a jury trial. But hell, I cautioned people that during the Michael Jackson case.

Mr. White's case is pretty infuriating to me, based on the information in that article. I will begin researching the case. I'm glad it has been brought to my attention.

[iverglas]

43. "Maybe if his case had gotten more exposure"

Well me oh my and golly gee.

I wonder whether that might kind of have been the point ...

[AtheistCrusader]

44. The defendant in both cases

Could be the difference there. In Joe Horn's case, his neighbors appear to have, in addition to all the other coverage, pushed every button they could find. Did Mr. White's neighbors care about him, or support him? Was there any apparently incriminating media to share for it, like Horn's 911 calls?

Generally, unless some story has legs of it's own, you have to bang on doors to get the word out.

I won't go so far as to pretend the media isn't biased, it's made up of individuals, both the owners and employees, and individuals have opinions and agendas. But I don't think that reducing the story to one-line comparisons adequately considers all the variables in why one case became nationwide media, and the other is largely silent. (The one-line comparison bit directed at the article in the OP, not you)

Edit: Damn my clumsy fingers.

[iverglas]

45. who's talking about media?

I'm talking about the brazillions of gun militant internet sites, where people quite obviously trawl the net hourly for evidence of persecution of firearms owners or of how smart and heroic firearms owners are.

I really, really just don't believe that all of 'em missed this story, which obviously would have appeared via google news at some point. Had the individual been white and the trespassers been some of those more darkly coloured people who have no right to be in the US and thus, obviously, no right to live, the story would have had legs attached to it in no time flat.

And nope, you just won't persuade me otherwise. It's so flaming obvious you'd have to cut my eyes out for me not to see it.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I would like to think we are better than that,

but of course, I cannot prove it.

I've already contacted the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and alerted some shooting groups I'm a member of. I guess I will see the response firsthand.

I can see one divergence in the facts that will probably put a damper on the results for Mr. White, he was not legally permitted to own that gun. What Horn did may have been immoral, but apparently was legal under Texas law. That is going to make the response different, even considering I have not included Mr. White's race in letters I sent.

A lot of people are resigned to accepting New York's restrictions, and instead of being outraged at the laws in that State, they simply suggest people not even live there.

[lepus]

59. This story has been up on many of the gun boards before.

Before you cry racism at the run rights advocates, how about crying racism about the prosecution. If White had been white and surrounded by black men at his own home would he have been prosecuted? Hmm, tends to point out the fact that most gun laws are racist in the way they are enforced.

Yup some things are so flaming obvious that it would be hard to miss. I seem to remember a quote about a forest and trees.

[Tejas]

47. English - learn it

"gotten"

Gotten, as in gotten exposure before this thread was started.

[iverglas]

49. a clue - get one

And then feel free to pass it along, because I find myself sorely in need of one.


Gotten, as in gotten exposure before this thread was started.

Yes. Uh huh. I see. And you felt the need to say this ... why?

Let me try to help *you*.

You say:

Maybe if his case had gotten more exposure, but noooooooooo.........easier to get on the white-gunowners-don't-care-about-blacks bandwagon AFTER the fact.

And I reply:

I wonder whether that might kind of have been the point ...

and, I dunno, you think what I'm saying has something to do with this thread?

I think what we're talking about here (I mean, maybe not you, I wouldn't know) is exposure in the big wide world, and especially those dark nooks and crannies of it where the gun militants hang out.

That was the original question, right? Where were all the gun militants when this was going on?

WHY DID THE CASE NOT GET EXPOSURE? -- that is the question. WHY didn't the WHITE gun militants get on the case of the BLACK gun user the way they got on the case of the WHITE gun user and several brazillion other WHITE gun users? -- THAT is the question.

It isn't really answered by saying "Maybe if his case had gotten more exposure ...".

Fuckin duh.

[Tejas]

52. Sorry, not into your race-baiting drivel

"WHY DID THE CASE NOT GET EXPOSURE? -- that is the question. WHY didn't the WHITE gun militants get on the case of the BLACK gun user the way they got on the case of the WHITE gun user and several brazillion other WHITE gun users? -- THAT is the question."


Ah, the fantasies of the anti's......

[jody]

34. It's pathetically sad that this incident is banished to DU's Guns forum derisively called gungeon

and treated by some DUers as though it does not involve a basic civil right.

ACLU says "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920" and gun-grabbers make similar assertions.

Their failure to support the civil right to keep and bear arms is pure hypocrisy.

:puke: on anyone who refuses to support Obama, the Democratic Party, and U.S. Supreme Court who acknowledge the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.

[pipoman]

36. According to the Mayor of NY

and officials in most of the burbs, law abiding people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves, they should count on the police for that. Law abiding people should be disarmed. How dare they defend themselves and deny people who come on their property with no other purpose than to victimize them the right to a fair trial after the fact.

It is not up to gun rights groups to single handedly change this idiotic mindset. It is up to the voters to overturn those elected officials who have created this idiotic set of backward thinking, racist laws which would punish a person for defending themselves and release, in the name of fairness, violent offenders with a slap on the wrist only to immediately begin victimizing again.

So MinM, are you doing your part to oust the people responsible for creating these types of scenarios or are you in full agreement with their way of doing things. Maybe it is time for you to join a gun rights group and become active in helping to overturn Mr. White's conviction?

[iverglas]

42. tell the truth much?

According to the Mayor of NY and officials in most of the burbs, law abiding people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves

Got a citation for that?

Didn't think so.

[Tejas]

48. hope you washed that foot

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEEDD1739F93AA25756C0A96E958260


"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani made a surprise proposal yesterday to require the owners of all 250,000 guns in the city to buy trigger locks for their weapons."

[iverglas]

50. so what language would you like me to read this in?

You say:

According to the Mayor of NY ... law abiding people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves

I seek evidence of the truth of your statement.

You say:

"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani made a surprise proposal yesterday to require the owners of all 250,000 guns in the city to buy trigger locks for their weapons."


Man. There may be an alternate universe in which those two statements are related, but I just can't believe there could be one where the second is regarded as proof of the first.

Unless there's a universe somewhere that was created by an insane gun militant ...

[Tejas]

53. You are of course encouraged to prove otherwise

Especially if you think someone harping for 250,000 trigger locks puts them at the forefront of "pro-RKBA".

[SteveM]

40. To OP: a serious question has been posed you in #36 (nt)

[MinM]

51. Re: To OP: a serious question has been posed you in #36

Frankly, as a gun owner, I admit to being woefully ignorant on the subject. My point in posting the story was to get the input of the experts on the board. Certainly the scenario described in post #36 would factor into my voting decisions. Luckily for me, the Democratic Candidates in my area advocate for gun rights.

Which leads me to another question:

Are there any non-partisan/non-gun industry 'gun rights groups' out there?

[jody]

54. Don't know about non-partisan 'gun rights groups' but I wish DU would become a partisan 'gun rights

group.

Every poll on DU about RKBA shows about 65% of the respondents support that civil right, RKBA.

IMO DUers should fight for all civil rights including RKBA particularly because presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Obama, the Democratic Party, and We the People acknowledge the law of the land -- the Second Amendment protects the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[SteveM]

55. Thank you for your answer. Most "gun rights" groups fall into 2 categories:

those identifying with the right, almost always the GOP, and those (much fewer) identifying with liberal politics, usually Democratic. (www.progunprogressive.com has a good links list containing some "lefty" groups.) Democratic Underground's Forum: Guns is unique in that a Second Amendment rights group exists within a larger liberal Democratic web site.

The very nature of how this issue has been framed (chiefly by the GOP) has heretofore made this issue quite partisan. The purpose, I believe, of this DU forum is to change the outlook of liberals who have somehow grafted a politically destructive gun-control policy onto what remains of any "progressive ideology." By doing so the "Gungeon" can help de-brand the Democratic Party as anti Second Amendment.

This doesn't really answer your question, and I don't know of a non-partisan/non-gun industry group as your describe. Part of the problem with this issue is that it goes far beyond an icon. I believe it is another front in the culture wars, one in which "progressives" unloaded a lot of animosity and hatred, esp. toward white males in power, with an aim to stigmatize them and make them undesirable for election. Of course, this blew up in the gun-controller's face, and Democrats have lost many races, from the legislatures to the White House. Further, the only viable special interest group within what's left of the gun-control "movement" is main stream media, much of which remains truculently anti-gun. The problem comes with the passionate hatred expressed toward so many gun-owners by so few "progressive" activists and institutions. As such it is hard to de-nature the issue to "non-partisan" status.

Little research had been done on Second Amendment issues before "gun-control" poked its head above the horizon in the 60s. (Gun-control was deeply imbedded in the de jure apartheid laws in the South for a century and a half.) Hence, there is still a rather slim scholastic tradition upon which institutes and advocacy groups could build. One would hope that the ACLU will change its stand and treat the Second as an individual civil right. But an organization which would regularly advocate for citizens who are denied 2A rights is needed. One final point: most 2A groups are legislatively-oriented -- trying to defend or advance Second Amendment rights -- and not litigation-oriented. If I remember correctly, the NRA was opposed to taking Parker/Heller through the federal courts, preferring to rely on legislative actions.

[MinM]

56. Thanks. n/t

[iverglas]

57. I just luv that progunprogressive.com

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.progunprogressive.com++iverglas&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

One of my fan sites.