“Negroes with Guns” America's Dark History of brutal, sadistic violence against African Americans

[virginia mountainman]

Great Read! A few excerpts..

....In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.

Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side.
Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of the NAACP and founded a 60-member NRA-chartered rifle club, described the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press.
According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed.

Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence. .......

.....His effort to provide guns and training to African-American civil rights supporters was alarming to white politicians. Most state gun control laws, not just in the South, were blatantly designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities. Those with racist beliefs were not pleased when blacks claimed the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans.

The connection with the NRA might surprise some people who portray the organization as a haven for racist rednecks. Former NRA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa spoke with Williams before his death. She recalls, "He was very proud of being an NRA member and that the NRA sanctioned his club without question."

The civil rights organizations of today bear little resemblance to the deadly serious armed activists of Monroe. African-American leaders generally support the liberal white line that guns are evil and have no place in modern society.

On the other hand, small numbers of responsible black gun owners continue to honor their heritage by practicing their marksmanship and joining gun rights organizations. The tradition of the black gun club still lives on in the Tenth Cavalry Gun club, led by Ken Blanchard in Prince Georges County, Md. .......

http://www.jacksonville.com/interact/blog/stanley_scott/2009-07-17/%E2%80%9Cnegroes_with_guns%E2%80%9D_america_dark_history_of_brutal_sadistic_v

[iverglas]

1. will there be more

of this rehashed blaxploitation tonight, or can I knock off for the day?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. You want some cheese with that whine?

[proteus_lives]

11. Wouldn't expect you to understand.

:eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

2. Black people had every right to use guns to protect themselves from the KKK IMO.

This OP can be turned into a fun poll.

"Did Black people in 1950's America have the ethical right to use firearms to defend themselves from violence of the KKK?"

or

"Do people have the ethical right to use firearms to defend themselves from the violence of the KKK?" (This one may be better since it includes other KKK targets, such as Jews and gay people.)

[Chulanowa]

9. of course they did. There's however a critical difference

They knew the KKK was out to kill their ass.

You see, there's quite a big difference in packing heat when you KNOW someone's coming after you.. .And packing heat because you're really hoping someone might come after you.

The Nugentians trying to compare the two are doing nothing but insulting these men.

[Taitertots]

14. You don't wait until the klan is at your door to buy a gun n/t

[Chulanowa]

20. No, but you do know that if you're a black guy living in a Klan area, it's a worthwhile investment

You know ahead of time that trouble is likely to come to your door.

On the other hand, most gun owners subsist on a "What if..." scenario. Many of them seem to long for a legal excuse to kill someone, and envy those who manage this feat.

Black guy in Klanville knows there's trouble around. Suburban Guy in Suburbia fantasizes that there might be trouble around. See the difference?

[Taitertots]

22. So you live in an area with absolutely no crime?

It is pretty clear that there is danger around still.


The black people knew trouble was very likely to come to their doors
The suburban people know trouble is less likely to come to their doors, but still clearly there
You pretend trouble could never come to your door


I guess not everyone is willing to pretend the world is perfectly safe.

[Chulanowa]

29. I don't live in an area with enough crime that I have to carry a gun, no

Some people enjoy wallowing in paranoia and abject fear of their neighbors, though. I can freely say I have no such psychological damage - your mileage may vary.

Tell me, Taiter. Are you building a bomb shelter, just in case someone nukes the place? Do you have a stock of epinephrine, just in case someone turns out to be allergic to bees? Do you have your own supply of gasoline, just in case the pumps run dry in the near future? Do you have arrangements and cash stashed away to make a quick getaway out of hte country in case fascism rises in power? Have you dug your own well? Do you know how to slaughter livestock? If you find yourself without a gun, are you trained in krav maga, or some similar combat technique?

Life is full of "what ifs". You apparently only want to address the one that might involve you getting to pretend to be Dirty Harry.

[Taitertots]

42. Life is full of what ifs

All the things you listed have little to no chance of happening. Thousands of people are victims of crime quite regularly. When was the last there was a nuclear bomb or fascist takeover in America.

You can pretend that you will never be a victim all you want. Some people recognize the danger and take reasonable steps to protect themselves. I don't carry, but I won't denigrate those who do. It is a totally reasonable reaction to obvious crime.

Do you have GFI plugs, a fuse box, carbon monoxide detectors, fire detectors, seat belts, or a first aid kit? You must be wallowing in paranoia and abject fear of the objects around you. You must be psychologically damaged to be so afraid of things that are statistically irrelevant dangers.

Apparently you only want to address the what ifs that involve impossible or statistically irrelevant scenarios. As opposed to the crime which effects millions every year.

[SteveM]

55. You should read what Gandhi said about self-defense (nt)

[spin]

17. I know a lot of people who legally "pack heat"...

I don't know any concealed carry permit holders who carry their weapons hoping to get a chance to use them.

[Chulanowa]

19. Of course you don't. Every single gun owner in America is a perfect angel!

[spin]

23. LOL. I guess that's what you think the average gun owner looks like...

Yep, we are all Hells Angels. Run and hide.

Note that I was talking about the people I know that have concealed weapons permits. As I pointed out, none have any desire to play Dirty Harry. In fact, those who have concealed carry permits are an extremely crime free segment of firearm owners.

One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

There's a simple reason CCW holders as a group are so law-abiding -- they have to be law-abiding citizens in order to qualify for a permit in the first place. This is what you automatically know about a person who has a CCW in Tennessee:

* They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
* They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
* They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
* They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
* They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
* They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
* They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
* They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
* They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
* They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
* They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."

Any one of those things disqualify you from having a CCW in Tennessee. Part of your $115 application fee pays for a background check. Another part of the fee pays for you to be fingerprinted and your fingerprints filed with the state. Registering your fingerprints with the state is not exactly the sort of thing someone bent on a criminal life wants to happen.
http://www.lesjones.com/posts/004329.shtml

Florida Concealed Carry Licensees Do Not Commit Crimes

Pop. - 13,277,000 Floridians Who Own Guns (Percent) All -- 62.7% Male -- 68.8% Female -- 57.3% Floridians Who Own Guns (Number): 8,325,000 Permits issued: 204,108 Permits Revoked Due To Crime: 17 (0.008%)

The latest report from the Florida Department of State, covering a 6-year, 4-month period from 10/01/87 (start-up date) through 02/28/94, shows that 204,108 CCW permits have been issued -- 69% new permits; 31% permit renewals. Only one-quarter of 1% of permit applications have been rejected due to an applicant's criminal history; two-tenths of 1% have been rejected due to an "incomplete application." One hundred eighty-seven (0.1%) permits have been revoked because the permittee committed some kind of crime, though not necessarily a gun-related or violent crime, after permit issuance. After receiving permits, only 17 (0.008%) individuals committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which firearms were present, though not necessarily used. By contrast, in 1992 there were about 46,000 gun-related violent crimes (assaults, robberies, homicides and rapes) in Florida, based upon FBI Uniform Crime Reports supplementary reports and reported crime totals.
http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/fla_model.htm

edited for spelling

[Chulanowa]

25. Nah, I don't, but the pun was too good to pass up

And I'm not sure what you're quoting CCW legal stats for, there. I'm not saying they're criminals.

I'm saying you don't buy a fucking gun unless you have a reasonable expectation that you're going to use it for something. People don't buy food to let it rot, nobody's ever bought a hammer with no intention of ever hitting anything. If you buy a gun, you have some idea that you're going to need it for something.

Additionally, there is a difference between knowing you're going to need that gun (as is the case in klan turf for us browner folks), and hoping you're going to need that gun (pretty much anyone else - case in point, all the masturbatory threads in the gungeon where a nugentian envies someone who gunned down a poor dumbass who touched hteir car)

[TheWraith]

27. Plenty of people buy things hoping they won't need to use them.

Fire insurance, first aid kits, guns, life insurance, pepper spray, emergency supplies, and on.

[Chulanowa]

31. Is that so?

A few centuries ago, did people buy swords hoping to never use them?

This argument would be a lot easier to buy, if it weren't posted on a forum about guns where a bunch of people cheer for other people who kill people with guns and blame hte victims of crimes for not having guns.

I mean if there were a "Emergency Generator" forum on DU where people tell stories of how their generator saved dinner after a power outage, or if there were a "National Calorie Bar Association" extolling the virtues of survival rations in their magazine, "The Granola Gnawer", sure, okay.

But there's not. in fact, the fact that there is an identifiable "gun culture" and nothing even close to resembling a "pepper spray culture" much less a "first aid kit culture" tells me that guns... are somehow different, and that buying a gun might involve a different frame of mind than buying flood insurance.

The day I see someone name their box of canned goods, I may think your argument holds water.

[spin]

33. Many people believe in being prepared for any emergency...

others don't.

If you live in Florida, which I do, you might take being prepared more seriously.

I evacuated Tampa when a nasty little hurricane called Charley was predicted to hit. I traveled south to my daughter's home near Ft. Myers. The storm decided to ignore Tampa and came ashore near Ft. Myers.

I had bought my daughter a generator for a Christmas present. So, we had power for the satellite TV, refrigerator and a freezer. Unfortunately the generator wasn't big enough to run the AC. We also had water, batteries, food and emergency first aid kits.

And we had firearms. There was a very slight possibility of looters. (The police were rather busy at that time and the phone service was out.)

[Chulanowa]

34. I do believe you're missing the point.

I can't figure out if it's intentional on your part, or if we're just having some issues in communication.

At no point have I thought the use of a gun for self-defense is invalid. I am however drawing the distinction between knowing you're going to need that sort of defense, and pretinding you will. There's a world of difference between your daughter's NRA-plotline deterrance, and some black dude living in Klantown's experience.

As an aside, how is it that everyone, everyone in the gungeon has experienced home invasion? Down to the last man. Seriously it looks sort of like how everyone on a right-wing message board is an ex-marine with their own self-run multimilliondollar business.

[spin]

41. I do believe we are having a communications problem...

Yes indeed, the "black dude" had good reason to believe that the KKK was out to get him. Owning a firearm was an excellent idea.

I do find fault with your idea that unless you know for sure that some group or person plans to attack you, then you are just pretending that you need a weapon.

There are many reasons to own a firearm. Target shooting, hunting, collecting and self defense. I've enjoyed target shooting as a hobby for many years. It's a great sport. It's very difficult to become proficient, but the effort is rewarding. It's not terribly expensive like many other hobbies. You meet a lot of very friendly and intelligent people at the range. (True, most are Republican and when you mention that you are a Democrat, you get a lot of good-natured ribbing.)

So my daughter and I enjoyed shooting for years. She became very confident and proficient with the handgun she used to stop the intruder. Had she been unfamiliar or shaking in fear, the intruder might have taken the weapon from her. When she drew down on him, he knew she was serious, that she meant business and she was capable of shooting him.

No, I didn't KNOW she was ever going to need a firearm for self defense.

You don't wake up one day and a reminder pops up on your computer telling you that you better buy a firearm because next month you'll need one. You buy a firearm for sport or hunting or possibly for self defense and you learn how to use it. Then if you ever need it for a real life emergency, you will have practiced enough to be able to concentrate on the threat rather than fumbling with the weapon.

I have no idea if you have any familiarity with firearms, but if you don't, let me explain that you don't learn how to shoot a handgun from watching the movies or playing video games. It takes practice. To become proficient, it takes LOTS of practice. Practice involves time. If a person is not willing to take the time or devote the necessary effort, I would suggest they not buy a firearm. It's not a toy, it's a serious responsibility.

Where do you get the idea that everyone in the gungeon has had a home invasion? It's very rare to ever run into someone who has had to use a firearm for self defense. I never have, nor do I hope that I ever will. Offhand, I can't think of any of the posters here who have stated this. In another post, I mentioned that out of all the shooters I've known, my daughter and two others used a firearm to defend their lives. I know a lot of shooters, so that's a very low percentage. I forgot my mother who used a small revolver to scare off a man who attacked her when she was walking home from work in the 1920 time frame. That ups the total to four.

[jeepnstein]

51. "Everyone" has experienced home invasion?

Not me, not by a long shot. I don't know where you're getting that at all.

I have a family emergency plan if it were to happen, just like we have one for fires, tornadoes, rail disasters, or sudden illness.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. So you get proven dead ass wrong and then just start insulting people.

The fact that you can't admit it is very revealing of your frame of mind.

David

[eqfan592]

43. If there were people trying to ban private ownership of emergency generators....

...then you're damn right you'd see an "emergency generator" forum. Guns are a hot political topic, and that's why the forum is here, not because a bunch of guys like to sit around and talk about how they wish they could "blow away" some criminal.

We promote stories of self defense cases to show people that those who say guns are only used for evil are wrong. I do not know of a SINGLE gun owner that actually hopes they ever have to use their firearm on another human being in self defense. Just because one prep airs to do something doesn't mean we actually wish it to happen. I have various emergency supplies in the house that I keep around just in case. That doesn't mean I actually want some major storm or natural disaster to take place.

I resent your characterization of those of us that post in this forum.

[Chulanowa]

46. You really think so?

I really don't, because there's a lot of things people are trying to lead up to the banning block that don't have entire forums dedicated to 'em on DU.

I don't know anyone who says guns are evil. I know plenty of people who think they are unsafe, and can be big liabilities in the home, and that it's too easy for those with ill intent to get their hands on them. But you see, unlike you guys... Most anti-gun folks, and critics of your "culture" don't anthropomorphize the things. We don't attribute evil to them, certainly not in the way you attribute goodness to 'em. If you really wanted to promote a better image of guns, do you think breathless panting over stories where someone killed someone else for touching their stuff is the best way to do it?

Next, after telling me that you're propagandizing to make guns look good, you then tell me you don't know any gun owner who wants to use their weapon.

Well gee, I guess I'm supposed to believe you, huh?

So let me make sure I understand this.

Every gun owner is completely sound of mind. They have no power fantasies, sexual or temperment issues, and always follow the law. They know safety in and out and always maintain and store their weapons properly. They are always mindful of the things and have no desire - they even DREAD - ever using them?

So what about all those motherfuckers with guns you apparently need protection from? Where do all those bullet holes in stop signs come from? How come it is that every so often, a whole bunch of pets and assorted animals end up with high-velocity lead poisoning? Just how do so many kids manage to get their hands on these things and kill or injure themselves?

I mean if every gun owner is an absolute paragon of goodness and right, then none of this stuff should be possible at all, right? Is this sort of like how you argue "guns don't kill people" while simultaneously arguing about how much good guns do? One moment they're a tool, the next they're capable of independent actiuon, so long as it supports your agenda?

resent al lyou like. it's an opinion I've formed from long study of you goofy sots.

[eqfan592]

48. Wow, long study of us goofs you say??

Did I say anywhere that ALL gun owners are paragons of goodness? NO. Not one fucking time. You're implication was that the average gun owner wanted to kill somebody. I stated that I did not know a single gun owner who actually wanted to use their gun on another person. Is that the same as saying that NOBODY wants to use their gun on another person? No, it's not. But then again somebody who is likely to want to use their firearm on somebody isn't likely a law abiding gun owner, and I don't associate myself with those people, which is the same for the vast majority of gun owners.

As for the stories of them, you're looking at them with a shockingly narrow viewpoint. The stories aren't about somebody getting killed, they are about somebody not being a victim.

And you say that anti-gun folks don't anthropomorphize guns, but "we" do? Go ask Sharesunited about that. And actually read the posts on this board made by gun owners (something that you would have done if you actually had "studied" anything at all). We try our best NOT to anthropomorphize guns. They are inanimate objects, nothing more. Owning one does not inherently change somebody (an argument I've seen many anti-gun nuts make). The point isn't that guns are inherently good, but that like any other tool, they can be used for good and ill.

These are all things that you should have learned in your "long study."

[spin]

32. Ten feet from where I'm sitting is a fire extinquisher...

And there are plenty more scattered through this big old house. (As well as smoke detectors.)

In the house where I lived at before I moved to this place, I also had fire extinguishers and smoke detectors.

I lived in that house for 35 years. One time while there, I did use a fire extinguisher. A pool filter caught fire because of a defective switch. I unplugged it and put the fire out with an extinguisher. Therefore, I have used a fire extinguisher one time in 40 years of owning homes. The fire wasn't even a danger to my home. I can't recall another person who I have personally known who has ever had to use a fire extinguisher in a real emergency. (We trained with them where I worked at before I retired. We never had a fire.)

Do I hope that I have to use the fire extinguishers in my home? Do I feel that I will need those safety devices.

Of course not.

Nor do I hope that I will ever have to use a firearm for self defense. I go out of my way to avoid placing myself in a situation where I might have to use a weapon. I also don't allow smoking in my house, the fireplace has a screen, the wiring in the house exceeds code and we don't overload the circuits.

I also had firearms in the previous home. One night, when I wasn't there, an intruder attempted to break into the house by forcing a sliding glass door open. He set off an burglar alarm (another safety device that I hoped would never be necessary). My 18 year old daughter stopped the intruder by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. He ran.

Did I buy that weapon fearing an attack? Actually no. I bought the S&W Model 25-2 as a target revolver. At one time it was widely used in NRA Bullseye competition until the .45 auto pistol became more popular. It was probably the most accurate revolver I have ever owned. My daughter who often went shooting with me, absolutely fell in love with this weapon. so it was the gun she grabbed when she suspected someone was breaking in.

I know a lot of regular shooters. It would be reasonable to ask how many have ever used a firearm for self defense. I can think of two other people. One used a .45 auto for self defense in France at the end of WWII. He was a soldier in the U.S. army but was wondering around a French city at night when he was attacked. The second was a locksmith who also stopped a robbery attempt late at night.

So you are misunderstanding the mindset of most shooters. Firearms are bought for several reasons. Some people like me enjoy target shooting, some for hunting or collecting. Yes, some do buy firearms for self defense. Self defense is a valid reason for owning a firearm. Chances are slim that a firearm will ever be needed, but it is a tool to use in an emergency.

Just like the fire extinguisher 10 feet from me is sitting there for a valid purpose.

[SteveM]

56. He-r-r-r-r-e-e come the dick jokes (strange, a little late)

You are really pushing this "hoping you're going to need that gun." You really need to clear up that kind of thinking; if you can't, seek counseling. Of course, the "masturbatory" allusion is standard stuff from folks who never caught the irony in Freudian psychology.

BTW, I use my guns frequently: at the range, in the field. I've never used a firearm against anyone, though I am prepared to do so.

[SteveM]

54. Interesting take on the "N" word -- Nugentians...

Really, "...packing heat because you're really hoping someone might come after you." I think this says more about you.

BTW, you should know that even if there is a group "coming after you," you never know when, do you? And some of those groups/individuals aren't stupid enough to announce themselves wearing cone heads, and have far more prosaic reasons to "come after you." Like robbery, rape, murder-for-street cred, etc.

[spin]

3. Some other examples of how armed citizens resisted the KKK...

In his 2004 book, The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement, Tulane University history professor Lance Hill tells their story. Hill writes of how a group of southern working class black men advanced civil rights through direct action to protect members of local communities against harassment at schools and polling places, and to thwart the terror inflicted by the Ku Klux Klan. He argues that without the Deacons’ activities the civil rights movement may have come to a crashing halt.

…Following a KKK night ride in Jonesboro, the Deacons approached the police chief who had led the parade and informed him that they were armed and unafraid of self-defense. The Klan never rode through Jonesboro again. Local cross burnings ceased when warning shots were fired as a Klansmen’s torch met a cross planted in front of a black minister’s home. The initial desegregation of Jonesboro High School was threatened by firemen who aimed hoses at black students attempting to enter the building. When four Deacons arrived and loaded their shotguns, the firemen left and the students entered unscathed. It was this series of efforts by the Deacons that caused the Klan to leave Jonesboro for good.

Similar work in Bogalusa, Louisiana drove the KKK out of that town as well, and led to a turning point in the civil rights movement. Acting as private citizens in lawful employment of their constitutional rights, the Deacons demonstrated the real social impact of the freedoms our nation’s founders held dear.

…Gun control measures, from the slave gun bans of the 1700s South to the Brady Bill regulations of the 1990s, have unfairly targeted black Americans and have worked to curtail a disproportionate number of their constitutional rights.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/02/09/blacks-used-gun-ownership-to-fight-the-kkk/

Some may disagree with the source, but I find this story interesting (if true)...

Condoleezza Rice on Gun Control

Developed opposition to gun control due to KKK

The event that seared its way most powerfully into Rice’s memory was the 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. She heard the blast. Rice recalls the terror she felt as an eight-year-old. “These terrible events burned into my consciousness,” she remembers. And, as America shook its head in disbelief at the murder of four girls, Condi was mourning the two she knew personally--including Denise McNair, her kindergarten classmate. “I remember more than anything the coffins, the small coffins, and the sense that Birmingham was not a very safe place.“

Armed with a shotgun, her father joined the other men of the black community in night patrols to keep the KKK out of the neighborhood. It was in the crucible of that experience that Condoleezza developed her opposition to gun control and came to value what she sees as the Second Amendment guarantee of the ”right to bear arms.“
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Condoleezza_Rice_Gun_Control.htm

[iverglas]

5. I can't see "disagree"ing with sources

But I do find myself compelled to point and laugh at them occasionally.

Rice? Nah. Cato.

How come these tales are not told all over the net by real live actual non-suckup African-American organizations??

The Cato Institute.

:rofl:


typos fixed ...

[virginia mountainman]

6. I guess since you clearly could not...

dismiss the message, you dismissed the messinger...

[Chulanowa]

35. well, yeah? because usually you can look at the "messinger" and tell the BS level

Going to right-wing sources for your gun info is kind of like going to Shell and Exxon for your info on climatology.

[spin]

37. Right, we all should go to the Brady Campaign for truth...

on the gun control issue. They NEVER lie or exaggerate.

[Chulanowa]

45. You can't really be that stupid, can you?

Of course the Brady Campaign distorts. So to the sources quoted above. Both have a pretty clear agenda. The Brady Bunch wants to ban guns, and the Frothers want to make murder legal.

Now, I want to nip something in the bud here, before you start barking into your own ass. I am not a supporter of "gun control" except in some rather vague quantities - I think they need to be registered so they can be identified when used in a crime, and that there should be some basic sort of competency test so that some motherfucker isn't sticking his finger and pulling the trigger like Bugs Bunny. you know, sort of like how cars have license plates and they give you a test to make sure you know that the upright monkeys walking around are pedestrians and not targets. I've been told that this is "communist" before, of course, but my tolerance for this subject has its line drawn somewhere before the "Mad Max" stage that so many seem to long for.

No, I'm not a gun grabber. This doesn't stop me from thinking the "gun culture" is extremely silly and more than a little perverse, and that most of the posters here live in a tiny and frightening fantasy world where paranoia is a virtue. I know that this doesn't pique whatever fantasies you may have of blowing someone away when they "come fer mah gunz" but it's the truth.

I don't mock you guys and argue with you because I don't think you should have guns. I do it because as far as I can tell, you guys are exactly the same as fursuiters, from the fetishism all the way down to the persecution complexes.

[spin]

49. To be fair to both sides...

it's hard to find an unbiased source of info on anything that relates to gun control.

I got a laugh out of the fursuiter comment. I've been called a lot of names on DU and had a lot of insinuations made about the size of certain body parts because I support gun ownership and concealed carry for qualified and trained individuals. Fursuiter is a new and fairly original insult. Thanks, I get tired of being called the same old names all the time.

It is a common mistake to believe that you can easy understand the psychology, motivations and mind set of large groups of people based on your observation and superior intelligence. Such behavior is often called stereotyping. Usually I find that people who stereotype reveal a lot about themselves that is not complimentary.

To understand my reasons for owning firearms, you would have to have a understanding of how I was raised and my life experiences. To understand why you have your views, I would need to also know your background and upbringing.

There are 80 million firearm owners in this country. Each has his/her own story and reasons for owning firearms.

I'm not fond of firearm registration. We don't play that game in Florida. If the scheme ever had any merits, the gun grabbers in California and New York destroyed those reasons with confiscation.

I have no problem with a requirement for a basic firearm competency test before you could buy a firearm or ammo. I've seen several people bring firearms to the range and they were unable to tell if their firearm was loaded or not. Accidents waiting to happen.

[SteveM]

57. You blow a lot of psychological argot -- short-cut for not being "stupid"? (nt)

[virginia mountainman]

40. Right wing?? WTF??!

You do realize the gun control movement, is lead mostly by Republicans??

[Chulanowa]

44. Yes. Condaleeza Rice? The CATO institute?

These are right-wing sources. Might as well be quoting Ann Coulter and the Heritage Foundation

[virginia mountainman]

50. Yea, Paul Helmke (R) Sara Brady (R) Bloomberg (R)

Rice, nor the Cato group, are not the "leaders" of the pro civil rights side...

Now the republicans that run gun control groups....

[iverglas]

52. I don't think anyone said "Republican"

I think someone said "right-wing".

The Cato Institute is right-wing.

Sarah Brady (is there really a reason no one can spell her name here?) was, and might still be, a Republican.

See the difference?


http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/sarah-brady.asp?cycle=08

Sarah Brady Contribution List in 2008

Brady, Sarah
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE
$250 10/26/2007
HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT - Democrat

Brady, Sarah
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE
$500 09/02/2007 P
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND - Republican


The ONE Republican to whose campaign Brady has contributed in recent years is her local rep, Michael Castle, a strong advocate of strong gun control.


2006:

Brady, Sarah
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE
$200 06/29/2006
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND - Republican

Brady, Sarah
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE$250 06/29/2006
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND - Republican

BRADY, SARAH
DEWEY BEACH, DE
$206 02/14/2006
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE - Democrat


2004

Brady, Sarah K
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE
$250 06/26/2004
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND - Republican

Brady, Sarah K.
REHOBOTH BEACH, DE
$250 08/30/2003
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND - Republican


2002

Brady, Sarah
VIENNA, VA
$300 07/17/2002
FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE - FEDERAL

BRADY, SARAH K
DEWEY BEACH, DE
$400 04/29/2002
CITIZENS FOR BIDEN - 2002 - Democrat


She's just one damned odd duck Republican, I'd have to say, if such she be.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Castle

Castle is president of the Republican Main Street Partnership and is considered one of the most moderate Republicans in the U.S. House. In the wake of Tom DeLay's indictment in September 2005, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne named Castle as one of four lawmakers capable of leading an anticorruption reform of the Republican Party. Castle is a member of various moderate/liberal Republican Organizations, such as Republicans For Environmental Protection, The Republican Majority For Choice, Republicans For Choice and Christine Todd Whitman's Its My Party Too. Castle is also the co-chair of several Congressional caucuses, including the Diabetes Caucus, the Community College Caucus, the Biomedical Research Caucus and the Passenger Rail Caucus.

The best example of Castle’s leadership and independence came with his cosponsorship of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. ... After successfully passing both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, it received U.S. President George W. Bush’s first presidential veto in July 2006.

Snork. Frankly, I'd give him money myself in preference to a lot of the Democratic Party heroes of the gun militant brigade.

http://www.ontheissues.org/house/michael_castle.htm

* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Anyhow, just to recap:

The gun militant brigade is right-wing, which is not synonymous with Republican.

[Tim01]

4. Recomended. nt

[DissedByBush]

7. This is one of my main complants about Bowling for Columbine

Moore made out the NRA to be a racist organization in cahoots with the KKK but reality is the opposite.

The NRA has a long history of helping blacks arm themselves to defend against the KKK. It is logical since the NRA was founded Northerners shortly after the war.

[TheWraith]

10. Heston didn't exactly help his appearence, there.

Talking about "mixing of the races" as a reason for America having a crime problem compared to nearly as gun-rich Canada.

[DissedByBush]

13. That was a strange quote

Especially from someone who was active in the civil rights movement of the 60s.

I'm thinking senile old man on this one.

It still doesn't explain the lies Moore told to demonize the NRA itself. And I don't particularly like the NRA either.

[spin]

15. I wasn't aware that he was activie in the Civil Rights Movement...

you learn something new everyday.

Heston campaigned for Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.<17> Reportedly when an Oklahoma movie theater premiering his movie El Cid was segregated, he joined a picket line outside in 1961.<18> Heston makes no reference to this in his autobiography, but describes traveling to Oklahoma City to picket segregated restaurants, much to the chagrin of Allied Artists, the producers of El Cid.<19> During the civil rights march held in Washington, D.C. in 1963, he accompanied Martin Luther King Jr. In later speeches, Heston said he helped the civil rights cause, "long before Hollywood found it fashionable."<20>.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston

You are probably right on his being senile.

He won a battle with prostate cancer, but in August of 2002 announced that he had "symptoms consistent with the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease." He chose not to hide this, in a desire, as he put it, to remain in touch with his audience.
http://www.classicmovies.org/articles/aa092902a.htm

[TheWraith]

16. To his credit, he might have been trying to say something else and simply mangled it.

Like that the history of race relations in the US have propagated urban violence, which would be completely true. Still, it did NOT sound good, and it's a pity that a lot of people are going to remember that more than his earlier record.

[SteveM]

58. One of the earliest "white guys" to march in hostile areas (nt)

[iverglas]

53. yes

"I'm thinking senile old man on this one."

Perhaps that really is the explanation for all of his gun-nuttery, eh?

[iverglas]

18. will you kindly stop repeating this falsehood?

It gets tiresome, and I can't believe that you have not seen the refutation.

nearly as gun-rich Canada

Canada is not "nearly as gun-rich" as the US, by any measure.

This appears to be some misunderstanding/misrepresentation of something Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine.

Canada has vastly fewer firearms per capita / per household, and a significantly lower proportion of households with firearms, than the US.

And most importantly, Canada has a tiny fraction, per capita, of the number of handguns that the US that the US has.

Please. Just stop.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. Are you saying that Michel Moore was wrong, or misstating facts?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

26. Have you actually seen "Bowling for Columbine?"

The numbers that Moore presented were pretty cut and dried, as well as being backed up by other sources. Canada has 33 million people, and about 9 million (legal) gun owners. The US has 304 million people, and about 100 million gun owners.

From my perspective, it was one of the most important points of the movie, and the one that most people tend to miss: the vitally important distinction that there's something wrong with this country and it's violence level apart from the availability of weapons.

[iverglas]

28. yes; twice; what is your point?

Canada has 33 million people, and about 9 million (legal) gun owners. The US has 304 million people, and about 100 million gun owners.

Your figure for Canada is bizarrely inflated; where on earth did you get it??

It might be a reasonably accurate figure for the number of FIREARMS in Canada. NOT the number of firearms owners.

No one estimates that more than 30% of Canadian households have firearms, and that is the upper limit of the range of estimates. The 2006 census found 12,437,470 households in the country.

Do you get some idea of how bizarre your figures are? 30% of that figure is about 3.7 million. For there to be 9,000,000 firearms owners, there would have to be an average of 2.5 in each firearms-owning household -- even if we take the highest figure for the proportion of households that have firearms.

Your claim is that 1/3.6 Canadians - adults, children - own firearms. If we say that 2/3 of Canadians are eligible to own firearms legally, we get 1 in every 2.4 eligible Canadians owning firearms. That is quite simply a nonsense.

I don't actually know Bowling for Columbine by heart, but I do know that Moore did not make the claim often attributed to him, that Canada has more guns and less crime/fewer homicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine

Moore compares gun ownership and gun violence in foreign countries, notably Canada (where there are 7 million gun owners and fewer than 100 gun-related deaths), with gun ownership and gun violence in the United States. Moore concludes that there is no connection between gun ownership and gun violence.

I am not Michael Moore, and I am not responsible for what he says, of course, and I expressly do not adopt it. I have no idea why he chose to disregard the too-obvious fact that possession of handguns in Canada for any purpose other than sports shooting and collecting (both subject to fairly stringent regulation) is essentially illegal, or the too-obvious implications when it comes to comparing the two countries.


The facts remain:

The US has multiple times more FIREARMS per capita than Canada.

The US has VASTLY more HANDGUNS per capita than Canada.

HANDGUNS are the major factor in crime and homicide in the US.
(And I have never said otherwise, I note to anyone who might want to say I have.)

There IS NO commonality between the situation in Canada and the situation in the US as it relates to firearms and CRIME, and the disparity in rates of HANDGUN possession is one of the obvious points of dissimilarity.

[iverglas]

30. firearms ownership in Canada

http://justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1997/wd97_3-dt97_3/p2.html

The figures may be old, but to suggest that firearms ownership rates (i.e. legal possession of firearms) are rising in Canada would be bizarre, and there would be no support for it. The vast, vast majority of legally-owned firearms in Canada are long arms, which are possessed for rural and hunting purposes. The population is increasingly urban, and hunting is declining.

http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/ca/2008/09/decline_of_waterfowl_hunters_b.html
"Since the 1970s, waterfowl hunter numbers have dropped precipitously across Canada, particularly in Western Canada. Hunter numbers peaked in 1978 when more than 505,000 waterfowl permits were sold nationwide; in 2005, according to the Canadian Wildlife Service, that number had fallen to a paltry 134,910."

http://www.bearmatters.com/archives/382
"A BC Stats study released in 2005 showed the proportion of resident hunters has dropped to two per cent of the population from six per cent in 1981. There were 83,701 registered hunters in B.C. in 2006."

And while not giving a crap what piece of crap Garry Breitkreutz says are the reasons, I'll assume he has accurately quoted his source:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/redtapetaxes.htm
"Since the government started introducing gun control laws targeting law abiding firearms owners in 1979, the number of hunters in Canada has been in a steady decline. While some of this drop may be due to “cultural attitudes towards hunting and shooting sports” much of the decline can be attributed to government red tape. For example, between 1966 the number of Migratory Game Bird Hunting Permits issued was 380,059 reaching a high of 524,946 in 1978 and dropping to just 168,091 in 2003. Source: Canadian Wildlife Service Migratory Birds Regulatory Report Number 5 – December 2003."

Firearms ownership is simply not rising in an increasingly urban non-hunting society.

From the link given at the top of this post:

Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey

Of the nine countries surveyed, Canada was in the middle range of gun ownership (Figure One). In Canada, 21.9% of households possessed at least one gun, which is a rate comparable to France, Sweden, and Austria.8 At the lower end of the scale, less than 5% of households possessed at least one gun in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands. In contrast, 36.4% of households in Switzerland and 48.5% of households in the United States possessed at least one gun, representing the higher range of ownership.

Does that look like more than double to you? It does to me.

2.34% of households in Canada report owning handguns.
25.12% of households in the US report owning handguns.


Just not seeing much similarity between Canada and the US in any respect, myself.

[Chulanowa]

36. I've never seen Bowling for Columbine

But I've read The Rifleman. Several years' worth in fact (they were the only reading material in a bathroom I frequented). I came away with the same conclusion about the NRA that Moore apparently did.

The NRA may have a long history of helping blacks defend themselves against the KKK, but the republicans have a long history of similar note, and look where they are now in terms of race relations.

[iverglas]

47. yeah

Every time this "racist roots of gun control" comes up, I mean to enquire about the racist roots of the Democratic Party.

And of course there are the misogynist roots of laws against rape ...

The relevant history here is the racist roots of the "gun rights" movement that emerged in the late 1960s and actually exists today, unlike the Democratic Party that supported slavery, e.g.

[SteveM]

59. So, let's take a look at "race relations"...

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and a major component in the Civil Rights Movement of the late 50s through the 80s. As you probably know, civil rights for blacks, Mexicans, women and rights for the accused, gays, and dissidents did not all happen at once, but required strong efforts over time. The Second Amendment has come late in the game, mainly because of rearguard anti-civil rights push by gun-controllers and MSM. But the push back has occurred, and some on the "liberal" side (mistakenly seen as anti-gun) don't want to admit that they were and ARE still fighting this natural extension of civil rights begun over 50 years ago.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. K & R