Is the struggle for gun rights like the one for civil rights? ...

so no, it's not "the same type". :eyes:

so no, it's not "the same type". :eyes:

Fail.

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

Third freakin' paragraph.

There is a subtle distinction*, but you've got to be rather a pedant to insist on it. After all, when we speak about the African-American "civil rights movement," we implicitly accept that it was about civil and political rights. Otherwise, why would we count the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 as one of the movement's achievements?

* - Civil rights are those that restrict the government from sticking its nose in your biznatch; political rights are those that secure your ability to, as a citizen, stick your nose in the government's biznatch.

And it has been just as badly obstructed as many others.

agreed.

One may choose to exercise a fundamental civil right or not. One does not lose a right for failure to exercise it. Rights are granted by God, governments only recognize them.

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

and how even today people in power try to make it difficult for the lower classes to own firearms for self defense.

Many of these people live in upscale gated communities with security police and armed professional guards to protect them, yet they favor laws that makes it almost impossible for some poor individual living in a crime ridden slum to own a firearm for protection.

One egregious example is the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.



If Michael Bloomberg has such a difficult time understanding why people carry guns, then why does his city allow the rich, famous and the connected to carry concealed weapons?



It's obvious that Michael Bloomburg believes in first class citizens like The Donald and second class citizens like you and me.

I should point out that I have absolutely no problem with celebrities such as Donald Trump having the right to carry a firearm. I live in Florida and I have a concealed weapons permit and I wouldn't be surprised to find that Donald Trump also has a Florida carry permit.

I do have a problem with racially biased laws designed to keep the poor and the oppressed from owning the means to protect themselves.

can't get a fucking gun.

Surely you are not so heartless that you can't see that it is possible that this lady might have been seriously injured or killed by her 18 year old neighbor who was "holding a pen light near her bedroom". If she lived in Chicago or New York City, chances are she would not have had a .38 special to defend herself with.

An unarmed 69 year old woman taking on an 18 year old thug is a bad match with predictable results.

Seriously, try to imagine yourself in the woman's position before you reply with some flip comment.

double barrel or pump shotgun. I would much rather imagine myself in her situation with a shotgun loaded with 00 than a 38. Not trying to be flip, just telling the truth.

You feel that a 69 yr. old woman is going to be able to deal with shotgun recoil?

and a great wing shooter and has killed many dear with 12 gauge slugs. Hope you don't pre-judge everyone by their age.

be real for a moment. How many 69 women OR MEN would choose a shotgun as a primary defense weapon? (At least a 12 gauge -- 20 gauge........somewhat different story)

Even veteran shooter/instructor Massad Ayoob has said he no longer considers a 12 gauge the best defensive firearm for his personal use.

a handgun is not necessary for home protection, even if being female or male of any age. Many handguns do bark. A 22 rifle can be way cheaper to own and shoot than any 38. Not as deadly as a 38? Well a 38 is not as deadly as a 44 mag either. A 410 may be more deadly. Those cities that limit handguns do not deny home protection if long guns are allowed. I'm over 60 and would chose my 870 over any of the many handguns I own if faced with an intruder. Don't even think of saying age or gender limit the use of a shotgun. Neither do, just as race, nationality or sexual preference don't.

Most experts agree that the best plan in case of a home invasion is first to do as you so often suggest and make your home a difficult target.

If you believe that your home has been invaded it's often recommended that you stay in a room such as a bedroom with a secure door. You call 911 on your cell phone, take cover (perhaps behind your bed) point a shotgun at the door and wait for the intruder. Obviously if he manages to break your door down, he has evil intent. Once you are positive that he is indeed someone who has no right inside your home, you shoot him. A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 Buck Shot should stop his attack.

It's never wise to play Wyatt Earp and clear your house and while I admit that it is foolish, I have often done it in the past. The home I currently live in was built around 1900 and was for many years a hotel. My daughter and son in law and my two grandchildren live in the home with me and frequently we have roomers who happen to need a short term place to stay. We don't rent rooms, but we often offer assistance to people in need.

So it's always hard to say what causes the bump in the night. I'm a fairly light sleeper and if the noise sounds suspicious I usually get up, pull on a pair of shorts and drop a snub nosed .38 caliber S&W Model 642 revolver into my front pocket. I then walk out of my bedroom to check the situation out. Often I find that one of the roomers has a visitor. I resolve the situation without scaring anyone because while my hand is casually inside my pocket on the revolver, no one is aware of this. A shotgun or a rifle would be unnecessarily intimidating.

A .22 caliber rifle can indeed kill a person. It would be wise to plan on shooting your assailant multiple times as the stopping power of a .22 is low. Still, I wouldn't chose a .22 caliber rifle as my first choice for self defense.

dictate to anyone. So please don't dictate to me..........



Don't even think of dictating to me what I can, or cannot say here. There comes an age for all of us when the heavy recoil of a 12 gauge will negatively impact follow-up shots -- Massad Ayoob has the humility to admit this. My 870 has had it's forcing cone lengthened, and I have a recoil suppressing stock. But I don't see myself using it as my primary defense weapon when I'm over 70..........assuming that I make it that far.

From the article quoted in the OP:

Italics mine. "Similar to" is not synonymous with "the same as"; one can point out similarities without asserting that two things are the same.

point:

Pro-gun activists are careful not to equate the open-carry movement with the epic struggles of blacks and gays to win basic civil rights, but they see plenty of parallels.

"We not suggesting that the severity of the discrimination is the same," says John Pierce, spokesman and founder of Virginia-based OpenCarry.org. "But it is of the same type. And it needs the same solution that other types of civil rights violations need. That is for the government to stop interfering with the fundamental rights of a group of people."

I'm a gun owner. I'm a strong supporters of 2nd amendment rights. I'm from a state (Texas) where guns are common.

But open carry isn't legal here. And I don't see open carry as a civil rights issue. Would you like to try some argument other than analogy from restaurant?

:hippie:

3 if 5 "Florida Watch" stories in the local section of the paper this morning had to do with gun violence.

Then there is this from just a couple of hours ago - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4564069


never mind - you have your linus blanket(s)

decides to violate that law and that persons rights the tool used is irrelevant. I have a right to be armed. If I misuse that right and violate someone else's rights then I will have to face the consequences for it. But you have no right to take any person's rights away on the basis that said person MAY at some point, violate someone's rights. It doesn't work that way - at least it shouldn't in a free society.

My legally concealed handgun is no danger to the safety of others. Provided of course, that those "others" do not engage in any illegal activity that would seriously harm me or others. See how easy that is? Everybody's rights are safe that way.

which is one of several reasons my safety is at risk

that you are irrational on the issue. You are insecure and afraid for some reason. You irrationally equate a lawful gun owner/carrier with a criminal intent on criminal activity. That is not rational and not a basis to base laws on.

at its worst.

Obviously it is stereotyping. I know plenty of retired police officers who own firearms and have concealed carry permits as well as retired members of the military who also own and carry firearms. I would not describe any of these people as insecure.

There are insecure people who own firearms, but the majority is people who are emotionally stable. There are plenty of valid reasons for owning firearms including for self defense.

I'll use myself as an example. I was newly married forty years ago and working the late night shift. There had been reports of prowlers in my neighborhood and my wife was concerned for her safety. I had experience with firearms in the service and I decided to buy a used revolver and teach my wife to shoot it.

I had never had any real interest in firearms and hated the yearly qualifications with a rifle in the Air Force. I hadn't been raised around firearms. Still, I didn't have the seniority to move to a different shift and the job I had paid well and offered a future. My wife was also unfamiliar with firearms but wasn't afraid of them.

So we went to the range. I was amazed at just how difficult a handgun was to master compared to a rifle. After a number of journeys to the range, I decided that the problem was the used handgun and it just lacked accuracy. I bought a new handgun a Ruger .357 Blackhawk which is a single action revolver similar to the revolvers cowboys used in the Old West. While I could hit the target at 25 yards, I realized after watching the experienced shooters that I sucked at shooting.

I discovered that I enjoyed shooting and started reading books on how to shoot and asking experienced shooters questions. I gradually gained some ability, but the progress was slow.

By that time we had moved to a different neighborhood and my wife no longer was worried about prowlers. I decided to sell the Ruger .357 and buy a Ruger .22 caliber semi-auto target pistol. .22 caliber ammo is cheap and the Ruger target pistol was extremely accurate. After many trips to the range, I had finally gained some skill at target shooting. My wife often went with me and we found shooting an enjoyable hobby.

After working some overtime, I decided that it would still be a good idea for my wife to have a home defense revolver. I admit that this was merely an excuse for me to buy another handgun. I chose to buy a Ruger .357 Security Six with a 4" barrel. This fine weapon really impressed my wife, and although time lead us to a divorce (I loved the late night shift and became a supervisor, she hated me being on it.), she took this firearm as her own.

Of course, I had started a good collection of firearms by the time our 22 year marriage ended. My favorite was a .45 caliber S&W Model 25-2 Target Revolver.



One night while I was at work, my 17 year old daughter used this revolver to stop an intruder attempting to force a sliding glass door in our home open. She was only 5 foot 2 inches and weighed less than 100 pounds. That made no difference. She drew down on the intruder and he ran. No shots were fired.

Of course, she had often been to the range and enjoyed shooting. When she left the nest she took that revolver with her and still owns it today.

Along the way I obtained a concealed carry permit. My neighborhood had went downhill over the years and I had started carrying a firearm in my car as there had been a number of bump and rob incidences locally. A co-worker suggested that I get a concealed carry permit. When I said I had no reason to carry a firearm, he mentioned that if I was stopped for speeding (I have a lead foot) it wasn't a bad idea to have a carry permit as it might make the traffic stop go smoother.

So I got one. I tried carrying a few times but I always tried concealing a full sized revolver or semi auto handgun. They were far too heavy to be comfortable and were hard to conceal in Florida's warm summers. After a few years I decided to buy something that I could carry if I chose to, something light and easy to carry. I chose an S&W Model 642 .38 special snub nosed revolver.



If I decide to carry, I just grab this little revolver and slide it inside a pocket holster into my front pocket and I'm ready to go.

One day at the range, the range master who is a good friend and a retired police officer asked me if I carried on a regular basis. I replied, "I carry when I go into a bad area, but normally I don't."

He then reamed my ass. He said, "The state of Florida decided to allow honest people to carry concealed weapons if they got the necessary training and passed the background check. They didn't do this just out of the goodness of their hearts, but they actually expected people to use their privilege and carry weapons in their daily life.

"While they don't expect you to be a cop or a vigilante and fight crime, they feel that if criminals realize that there are armed citizens carry concealed, some may decide to change their tactics and avoid situations where they might encounter an armed citizen."

"Chances are that you will never have to use your weapon. But I damn well don't want to hear that you ended up dead and didn't have a weapon on you for self defense, nor do I want you to come in here and tell me that you might have been able to save someone’s life if only you had your weapon with you."

"Now what I want you to do is start carrying your concealed weapon on a regular basis."

I took his advice.

Now I will ask you, where do you see insecurity in my personality? I obtained my first handgun primarily for my wife and discovered that I enjoyed shooting as a hobby. It proved a wise decision as that hobby might have saved my daughter's life. Like many regular shooters that I know, I obtained a concealed weapons permit and I carry. I don't ever expect that I will find myself in a situation where I might have a legal reason on use a weapon, but I never want to find myself in a situation where I realize that I need a weapon for self defense. I took the time and effort and spent the necessary money to get a concealed weapons permit. It would be foolish not to use it.

completely devoid of any factual basis. As such it is only your feelings, or more precisely, your insecurity. I lawfully carry a concealed firearm. Not because I feel threatened by any particular thing, but because I am aware of the real (albeit, rare)possibility of a criminal doing criminal things. You are aware of the fact that firearms are used apx. 2 MILLION times each year in self defense right?

I also keep a fire extinguisher in my car. I do this not do to any insecurity but because of the very real possibility that it may be needed. In my 25 years of driving I've needed it only once, but I still keep one. My wife of 5 years calls me the "boyscout" because I have a tendency to "be prepared". This also includes having oil lamps around the house that are full and ready to go. We need them maybe twice a year - and she is very thankful every time even though she starts giving me grief the next day when I refill them calling me a "boyscout".

The idea of being prepared is not insecurity, the irrational fear of a firearm in a holster is.

Mill articulated an idea that had been floating around for some time previously, that the only legitimate restraint on individual freedom should be insofar as it intrudes upon the freedom of another. As Jefferson said of not adhering to monotheism, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," and that characterization adequately captures the legitimate reasons for restricting people's freedoms. My possessing a semi-automatic rifle, or carrying a concealed handgun in public, no more presents a threat to your life and limb than your possessing a PC and a modem threatens my bank account and credit rating, or your carrying a can of gasoline and a box of matches in public threatens my house or business. The fact that I am physically capable of endangering or injuring you through negligence or malice with my firearms doesn't mean that I will, any more than your being physically capable of stealing my identity and going on a shopping spree at my expense means you will, or your being physically capable of setting fire to my car and house means you will.

But if I do unlawfully endanger or injure you with my firearms, I will be subject to criminal investigation and, if caught, prosecution, just as you would be if you stole my identity or burned down my house. Or if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court of law that either of us were in the process of trying to do any of the aforementioned things. That is where political and legal systems should draw the line: unless and until there exists an imminent threat to your person or property, there is no legitimate reason to restrict individual freedom.

Consider the following: the internet gets used for a lot of nefarious activity; identity theft, dissemination of child pornography, communication between organized criminals and terrorists, etc. etc. Let's say that I (and some like-minded people) demanded that our "fundamental right to safety" required that every computer be registered (the motherboard could, for legal purposes, constitute the "computer"), and that additionally, to acquire a modem, one needs a license that may be issued at the discretion of the local chief law enforcement officer if the applicant can pass multiple background checks, pass a written and practical exam, provide references and, above all, show a compelling need to get on the internet (which, considering that 15 years ago, most of us managed without the internet, will be a very tall order). And, of course, there would have to be restrictions on CPU clock rates, RAM, hard drive capacity, monitor size, and ergonomic and/or wireless keyboards and mice, lest anyone build an unregistered "assault computer" (sure, none of those make a machine faster on the internet, but then again, restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" have next to nothing to do with lethality either; and all those features really only serve to make a machine better for playing first-person shooters, which are murderer academies anyway).

Do those sound like reasonable demands? This is about people "fundamental right to safety," after all, and that should trump any mere "inconvenience" to you. "Won't someone think of the children?" and all that. Speaking of whom, Ghu help you if anyone other than a registered user gains access to your machine, so we'll be needing to mandate keyboard locks as well, and of course mandatory reporting of stolen computers.

But the Rights they represent. The difference in the first and second amendments is in how we see them. If the goverment tried to put the same restrictions on the first that some want to put on the first would that be right? How many would yell and scream against it?

Yet these same people see no problem in restricting the second amendment. They are both the law, a way to prevent goverment from being intrusive, and all powerfull.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

3 today

- a guy threatens to bring his rifle to the tax office and "shoot up the place" because he cannot get a tax problem resolved in his favor
- a gunman kills himself and one other then drove through the neighborhood shooting at random - injuring 5
- a guy fatally kills a 9-year old in a van - he opened fire on two women and 4 children


Just scanned the paper again - not one PC-violence story

anecdotes does not erase the fact that every year there are apx. TWO MILLION defensive gun uses by lawful gun owners. Here is the part that you don't seem to get. Criminals will do criminal things. That in no way should be used as reason to enact prior restraint on the law abiding that wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

That trojan horse that grandma inadvertently installed when she clicked on the link purportedly showing pictures of her grandkid that's waiting for her to enter her credit card on amazon.com? How about the kid who thought he was clicking a link to a cool new app for facebook, but is really turning his PC into a spamnet zombie? Or the guy who entered his password on what he thought was his banking site because he got an email saying his account was overdrawn?

Gee, that didn't make the news yesterday, either, but it's a heck of a lot more likely.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cyber-crime-survey,2134.html

Complete emotional twaddle, therefore impossible to prove or disprove.

All violent crime, including gun crime, is at a 25-30 year low. How exactly does one measure this 'out of hand' condition?

Gun violence stories make the paper because they are rare. Identity theft stories don't make the paper because they are not rare.

"Man Bites Dog" is more newsworthy than "Dog Bites Man" because the former is more rare, even if the severity of the wound the man inflicted on the dog is nowhere near the severity of the wounds the various dogs inflicted on the people they bit.

try to ignore it. Fundamental rights are fundamental rights, no matter how much you don't want to hear it.

See, call me strange, but when faced with bald assertion unsupported by evidence, or at least reasoned argument, I tend to be unreceptive.

I might add, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread to "divideandconquer," that "point out similarities" is not the same as "equate." Grover will be happy to point out that "equates--equates, that is the same thing as" around 3:46 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mieUsShDZL8

No, you may not be able to inflict physical injury on me with a PC, but you can most assuredly cause me material harm. I do not equate ("equate, that is the same thing") firearms and PCs; I point out similarities, especially as they pertain to principles of respective rights.

If you argue that your putative "fundamental right to safety" entitles you to demand the implementation of laws that restrict other citizens' ability to possess effective means of self-defense on the grounds that they might use those items to inflict material harm upon you, then it follows that my putative "fundamental right to safety" entitles me to demand that you be restricted from possessing PCs, an internet connection, pets of any kind, motor vehicles, power tools, cell phones. annoying relatives who come to visit, you name it, provided I can argue (however spuriously) that it presents a potential threat to my "fundamental right to safety."

Shit, your very existence is a potential threat to my "fundamental right to safety"; I demand you and your entire family have yourselves euthanized at once. Of course, once you and yours are dead, my family will no longer present a threat to yours, so my family and I can remain alive.

Are you getting an idea of the distinction between an abstract notion of a potential threat to your safety, and a concrete imminent threat?

Since you never pass up an opportunity to do so yourself.

Do you have anything to offer other than "is not!"?

with insecurity.

Supreme hypocrisy AT BEST.

See your post above: "Violence is out of control," following by the (correct) responses pointing out that violence is at its lowest point in decades. Or your post saying that you read three gun violence stories in the news, but no pc-violence stories. Perhaps that would be because pc-related crimes - like identity theft - are so common they don't even make the news?

http://www.ncjrs.gov/spotlight/identity_theft/facts.html



Your arguments continue to show a lot of emotion but very little reason.

This country has actual problems, and lack of freedom for firearms is not one of them.

right and the damn grabbers are takin' it away fast as they can.

There's few enough rights spelled out in those Amendyments, and hoomosexshuls marryin, wimmins gettin abortions and unwhite people sittin at lunch counters ain't spelled out like carryin' guns is, but everboddy's fine with them marchin and stormin and fightin for thier rights.

Carryin a gun anywhere and everywhere is a God-given right and should be as common as that rubber in your wallet, and for the same reason-- you never know when you'll need it.

Right now, somewhere in the world is something that needs to get shot. Better be ready if you're there.

I don't recognize the accent. Where is it from?

Stereotypica, you will recall, being that part of the United States west of the Hudson river. Since pro-RKBA types by definition live in Stereotypica, when one is impersonating one, one should use a Stereotypical accent.

Any struggle for the rights we all share (or are supposed to) have similar veins.

I'm not going to compare the two beyond this: both need to happen for the good of the country.

Same as owning weapons and CCW.

I don't carry, open or CCW, every day but if my state or local government was talking about restricting it, I would.

How would expanding CCW improve the country?

People using and understanding their 2nd Amendment rights. Protecting themselves and standing up for their rights, letting politicians know that they can't restrict personal freedoms.

Same as voting, free speech, marriage rights, labor laws and the rest.

You have be willing to stand up and say, "this matters to me."

How would it make the country worse? CCW and gun ownership is going up and crime rates continue to fall like a rock.

Hypothetical: if CCW became commonplace and crime rates went through the roof, you would be willing to sacrifice that right, is that correct?

Would you give up your right to vote if someone connected crooked politicians to votes from your ethnicity/gender/group?


And I don't consider it a safety issue. I consider it a personal freedoms issue.

as long as you can carry your gun. Is that for the good of the country, or the good of your personal wishes?

P.L.'s choice, or my own, to carry a concealed weapon have any bearing whatsoever on the safety of others??

If crime rates went through the roof, and it was directly attributable to CCW, I want to know who would be willing to sacrifice that right.

And who would demand that right, at the (potentially greater) expense of others' rights.

The good of the country is served when individuals are ensured of their rights, as per the Bill of Rights; some having those rights, and others not is not "good for the country."

However, the RKBA is for the great majority of gun-owners a right to self-defense. That some (like John Lott) have theorized that concealed-carry results in lower crime rates -- a position I'm not convinced of -- is an expression of social policy. I don't view the RKBA as "social policy" (good or no). But an individual having that right ensured is good for the country, esp. if there should come a time when social insurrection, tyranny or gross criminality is the norm.

Please explain how "...that right, at the (potentially greater) expense of others' rights" would come about? Which rights of "others'" are involved? Do you believe that there are so-called "community rights" which trump individual rights?

I'm a safe and legal firearms owner and user. Like millions of other Americans.

I've never understood why I should be blamed or punished for criminal/irresponsible behavior (Behavior by the minority.)

You're more in danger from irresponsible drivers when your leave your home then gun-owner/carriers.

And it's for the good of the country like voting, protesting, marching and standing up for yourself is.

I'm asking, as a matter of policy: if it could be shown that CCW definitively increased violent crime would you give it up?

I know what you're talking about though. I'm a great drunk driver - I can drive well with my blood alcohol WAY past the legal limit. Why should I be blamed for the other putzes who have one too many, then rear-end someone at a stoplight? :shrug:

As for that policy question, I don't know. Because gun ownership/carrying doesn't equate with criminal behavior. Your "what-if" is really out there and requires a fundamental shift in human behavior. Not to mention the massive societal requirements that would foreshadow such a change.

You seem unable to accept the fact that you're not in danger from safe and legal gun owners/carriers.

there would be NO "shall issue" Concealed Weapons License available in Florida today. Few other states would allow "shall issue" concealed carry. I would not have a carry license and I would not be carrying.

The law has passed all tests and proven to be far more successful than anyone could have predicted. That why the U.S. CCW map looks like it does. Remember that Florida has allowed "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987.

In the next several years it's quite possible concealed carry will be allowed in Wisconsin and Illinois.

:thumbsup:

"In the next several years it's quite possible concealed carry will be allowed restored in Wisconsin and Illinois.

There, fixed it for you. :toast:

Now that he's run Chicago into the ground financially, and left no clear successor his rabid POV on privately owned guns (as opposed to hose carried by his and his family's bodyguards) may be replaced by someone with a broader view and a different set of priorities.

Our "Downstate Dems" may actually get a CCW law to the floor of the house and senate for voting. Daley's meat puppets have kept it from the floor for over a decade. But our friends behind the "cheddar curtain" in Wisconsin may beat us to it yet.

What you should be worried about is when we make it so that one doesn't need a license to conceal.

If it could be shown that general access to the internet definitively increased dissemination of child pornography, would you give up internet access?

And if not, how are your reasons for doing so any different from those who want to retain CCW?

question is exposed with Euromutt's post #53.

Clearly it is more productive to ask questions which relate to actual events rather than hypothetical events which may or may not occur. So along those lines --- a question for you:

Why did you misrepresent the conclusion of the 1986 Kellermann study on 8/12/2010 at 10:26 pm?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=334436#334468

a gun is nothing more that a paper weight how does a holstered gun threaten your safety?

And while we're here where, exactly, is the "right to safety" codified?

I suspect can be found next to "the right to police protection", iow: Nowhere.

and whether or not they conflict with the rights of others is cultural progress. Progressives and liberals typically advocate for it. Get with the program.

Good idea, it's more efficient that way.

The assertion of the right itself is largely beside the point. The assertion of that right spotlights the rights of others that may conflict with it. It also may spotlight the absence of conflicting rights.

It's called cultural change, and change is always stressful.

Last time I checked a Constitutional Amendment was originally in place for guns, and didn't have to be fought for much later.

Seriously?

Ever read the 2nd Amendment? When did blacks and women get the right to vote?

...(many of them minorities and women) exercise their Second Amendment Rights?

To answer your question, we amended the Constitution and shed a gawd-awful amount of blood to expand those Civil Rights. Until recently there was a concerted effort to UnConstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment, a battle that is still being fought in the courts as we type...

"and didn't have to be fought for much later."

The modern gun-control movement pretty much took up where Jim Crow left off. After the '64 CRA and the '65 VRA, Jim Crow was flushed from his warm place to shit in the South, but was sweetly called back to his nest, sited, now, in the North. Review the gun-control laws enacted or proposed since then (and some earlier ones in the North, like the Sullivan Laws) and you will find their prototypes in both antebellum law, and the post-Civil War Jim Crow era.

You won't find many people marching in the street, no sit-downs, no widespread use of boycotts. But there is a bit of a struggle going on which is reflected in many, many Democrats who have lost elections, and the powerful tide of expansion marking the defense of the Second Amendment (I'm sure you have seen the many colorful charts of states going to concealed-carry status in this forum).
Civil Rights aren't just for the poor, minorities, and the historically discriminated-against.

The nearly undeniable truth in all this: Gun-controllers made the modern NRA (and helped cripple the Democratic Party).

As in, the one that was supposed to impose equality before the law regardless of ethnicity on the states. That only took, what, ninety years to actually start to be obeyed in statute, and longer in practice?

Never excluded from jobs, schools, or neighborhoods. Never denied admission to universities or country clubs.

On a scale or 1 to 10, the whining is at 11.

Anyone familiar with the gun control issue is well aware that the roots of gun control are racist and that many current gun control laws are to prevent "those people" form owning firearms.





Florida, where I live, does not allow open carry but has "shall issue" concealed carry. I know a good number of people who are black, Hispanic or Asian who have concealed weapons licenses. Of course, I also know a number of women with these licenses including my daughter.

you leave out the fact that most large urban areas with a majority, or high number of Black people consistently vote for and support mayors that push for stricter gun laws in their cities. Also, many very blatantly racist groups like far right wing militias, the KKK and White Supremacy orgs are big supporter of unrestricted gun rights to the extreme. There have been a few recent stories in the news about members of these groups going nuts with their guns or planning to against the police because they fear a loss of their gun rights.
While at one time gun restrictions were based on racism, today the opposite is true.

...as the overt white supremist message started to give them image problems and real legal problems.

References to early 19th century history are as irrelevant as canal era stories.

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

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

http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_capitolmarch.html



Can't wait to hear that the motivation behind the Mulford Act wasn't racial - not a bit racist at all, nosiree....

If you don't think 1967 is different from today, you are seriously mistaken.

Your wiki post (which does not have an editor or an attribution) hardly makes a case that the law was "racist".

How about the laws passed in the late 60's in the wake of civil rights clashes, making it a crime to have a firearm in a 'declared state of emergency or riot'?

43 years ago is a long time ago even for us old farts.
Now, tell us about how the KKK and the White Supremacy gun zealots are really freedom fighters for minorities.

I'm looking around, all I see is DU, not stormfront.

What gun law were neo-nazi's involved in repealing?

None, you say? Why then it's downright disingenuous to throw them into the mix, now isn't it?

I mean, Hitler was a vegetarian, but would you paint all vegetarians with that brush?


Let's see.. more recently.. hrmm.. Clinton's endorsement of random searches of housing projects looking for guns, in contravention of the fourth and second amendments (disproportionally affecting african americans, if not by design).

How about Philadelphia's continued denial of concealed carry permits based on 'character and reputation', that seems to mainly deny law-abiding, otherwise qualified african americans and latinos those permits?

Considering we're only nine years into 'this century' that's a bit specious, no?

Note- this was only proposed for heavily minority neighborhoods. Not South Boston, Brighton, Allston, Beacon Hill, or West

Roxbury.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x164452


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=164231#164660


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/25/police_limit_searches_for_guns/?page=full



Police limit searches for guns
Opposition from residents is strong; Invited into homes without warrants

Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a warrant.

The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start date...

...But for many of the 100 people who packed the Roxbury Family YMCA last Thursday to talk about the plan, the goal of the program was overshadowed by tactics they called invasive and misleading....

..."The community doesn't want this," Lisa Thurau-Gray, managing director of the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University Law School, said at the meeting. She likened the police persistence to a sexual aggressor who refuses to stop assaulting a victim despite her pleas. "What part of no don't they understand?" she said..

the Hutaree militias plan to kill 100 cops to protect their gun rights.

sad

Forgive me for not being tolerant of people who refuse to acknowledge the long history of racism, classism, and general xenophobia that clouds gun control in US politics. Those who refuse to remove their rose-colored glasses (about any subject, really) are worse than those misguided people who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant. Revisionism in the name of political correctness is dangerous.

Still, if you want to stand with Ronald Reagan- go right ahead. No one is stopping you.

I think you need to go outside and get some fresh air.

No matter how much bafflegab they might employ in an attempt to disguise it, the inconvenient truth remains:


If someone thinks California's ban on the open carriage of loaded firearms is a good law, they are in agreement with

Ronald Reagan on the issue. As governor of California, he signed it into law, and IIRC it would not have passed without his

support.


Do you approve of said ban, or not?

Don't be shy....

vote for anti-RKBA politicians.

I will point out that obviously many white voters also vote for anti-RKBA mayors in some large urban areas. Therefore it may not be be a racial divide.

I suspect that the simple reason that people in some large urban areas oppose gun ownership is that they are familiar with the misuse of firearms by the criminal element but unfamiliar with honest citizens being allowed to own and even carry firearms. Change is difficult and commonsense would indicate that allowing more guns would only cause more violence. Unfortunately, commonsense is sometimes wrong. While more guns statistically does not lead to more crime, it's hard to prove that more guns decrease crime. While it might be possible, many factors influence the crime rate.

It should also be obvious that not all people in large urban areas oppose firearm ownership or the legal carry of firearms. If that were true, this map would look far different. Many of the states who allow firearm carry contain large urban areas. 82.3% of United States citizens live in urban areas. ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percentage-population-living-cities



Mayors are often faced with budget constraints and fighting crime by better policing is expensive. If a mayor has a crime problem in his/her city it often is cheaper to blame guns as the problem and to advocate further gun control measures. The voters will feel that the mayor is making an honest attempt to fight crime and will vote for his reelection. Eventually the voters wake up and elect a mayor who supports and will finance proactive police work.

As to your comment:

"There have been a few recent stories in the news about members of these groups going nuts with their guns or planning to against the police because they fear a loss of their gun rights.
While at one time gun restrictions were based on racism, today the opposite is true."

First, as you say there have been a few stories about far right militias going nuts. The phenomenon is rare and that in itself is surprising considering the amount of hatred spewed by the far right.

Second, I should point out that today gun control is not strictly racist but targeted toward "those people" who are the average common lower middle and poor classes of society. While it's a subtle difference, it effectively manages to make firearm ownership difficult for most minorities as well as the "poor white trash".

crime here is usually a kid out ringing door bells and running away. Of my neighbors, I'd say 80% own guns. I don't think crime has much to do with people owning all of those guns. People here hunt, collect and have a tradition of gun ownership.
When I lived in Detroit, there were murders, car jacking and armed robberies all the time in my neighborhood. People just wanted it to stop. They didn't want to have to shoot anyone and didn't want their kids and all of the break in artist to have access to any guns if they did want to have them. It is just 2 different worlds.
I don't think those in less populated areas should make the rules for city dwellers or vise a versa. I think both should respect the feelings, fears and traditions of the others. That is one of the reasons I take a middle ground approach to gun laws. I think instead of calling names, personal attacks and an unwillingness to look at both sides, as many here seem to do, people need to walk in others shoes to understand the reasoning behind what different people want.

.. have 'feelings, fears, and traditions' that say african americans should be ran out of town? Should we 'respect' that?

I don't give a shit why the residents of Redneckville want to ban abortion, glbtq high school teachers, 'harry potter', unions, muslims, teaching evolution, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I can understand. Doesn't mean I'll ever agree with their wrongheadedness.

is the only thing you listed that the residents of Redneckville don't wish to ban. But you knew that.

Why do a group of people get to decide that one right is okay to deny, but whoah nellie, can't have that shit when it comes to another, eh?

All or none, it's not a buffet.

It happens that way in a representative democracy. Small groups like the supreme court, legislators and elected officials define and incorporate the rules, limits and definition of rights. No rights are absolute, all have restrictions and limits. The only question is where do we draw the line. Zealots move those lines to the extreme ends.

The movement has always been toward protecting more and more rights.

We started out with a handful of rights enumerated specifically, and some vague quantity of unenumerated rights.

Via constitutional amendment, we've added more protections (women vote, no slavery, no poll taxes.) Via legislation, we've protected other rights (Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC, Americans with Disabilities). Via judicial decisions, we've protected more rights (selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights, Cantwell v Connecticut, Loving, Lawrence v Texas, Roe v Wade, Heller, McDonald.)

Nobody's claimed that all rights are absolute, that's a straw man of your own design.

Once rights have been protected, that removes blatant denial of these rights from the likes of Redneckville (or Chicago, or DC). It puts up a hurdle that is damned hard to get over- especially so for 'fundamental' rights. Face it, the days of 'experimentation' with the right protected by the second amendment is almost over.

not Alabama. We don't get all worked up about things like that, especially during Football Season. We do have pretty strong feelings about those people that live in that state up north.

for all.

I've lived in large urban areas and small rural towns in Florida. I've always been allowed to own a firearm without a requirement to kiss some bureaucrat's ass for his permission. There is no requirement to register my firearms. I can carry them in my vehicle loaded as long as they are "securely encased" (in a snap holster, a locked or unlocked glove box or a box with a lid or cover that has to be opened).

Since 1987, I have also been allowed the right to carry a concealed weapon if I pass a background check, have attended classes on gun safety, submitted my fingerprints and photo and payed a very reasonable processing fee. The Florida concealed weapons program is "shall issue". If I meet the requirements, I get the license. Wealth, race, gender or religious affiliation are irrelevant.

I can travel through Florida knowing that the CCW rules are the same everywhere. Tampa doesn't have unique rules or requirements for me to know before I carry nor does Orlando, Miami or Jacksonville. I can go from the most densely populated urban areas to the most remote rural areas and I can confidently carry my concealed weapon knowing that I am legal as long as I follow some basic rules. For example, I can't carry my concealed weapon into a courthouse or a school.

Why should I as a resident of Florida be a first class citizen with more rights than people in New York City or Chicago? Does the Second Amendment state that it only applies in rural areas or in certain states?

In many locations such as New York City the rich and famous and the well connected are able to get licenses to own and even carry firearms concealed while a member of the lower middle or poor classes finds obtaining a license almost impossible, very time consuming and expensive.

Notice once more that I don't play the name calling or insulting game that some do. Such tactics are useful when your argument lacks validity. I have yet to find myself in that position while debating the subject of gun control.

Be allowed to restrict your constitutional rights?

Rights that aren't granted by consensus but protected by law?

to denigrate pro-2A arguments. The thinking is to somehow encapsulate the ills of the country and label it "white male," the general, all-round class to dump on since the 1960s. However prejudicial, this thinking doesn't hold up.

The South's gun laws were highly restrictive for all people before the 1960s. Getting a concealed-carry license was discretionary and expensive for anyone, as it was for blacks to vote. Gun laws were confusing and poorly-applied when it came to carrying in your car. Of course, blacks suffered Second Amendment discrimination more than whites (MLK was denied a CCW in the mid-50s), but this is because prohibition has always been poor public policy, if for no other reason than bans leak like a bucket made of window screen. Further, laws aimed at restricting guns for blacks often fell with equal weight on poor whites. When the expansion of "gun rights" in the South started in earnest during the 1980s, it was due in large measure to the recognition that if blacks could be assured of equal rights, then whites could as well, esp. with regards the Second Amendment. Read the Heller brief submitted by www.georgiacarry.org (search locally), wherein a "largely white" group recounts a history of white ruling class discrimination in order to argue the Second Amendment case for all people in D.C.

BTW, if you got mediocre grades in high school, but your Daddy was an alum, you could "outgun" an honors student when it came to getting admitted to flagship schools. One mile from my old home in Gainesville, Florida, there was a pleasant neighborhood which specifically denied Jews home ownership. Last I looked, most Jews were considered "white," some even "male."

Just an outlook from an old Florida Cracker.

and have all my life.

Because of that, I have had many friends through the years who were very diverse in race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. I have learned a lot through these relationships.

History often tends to repeat itself and I have noticed a trend in our country to favor the rich and privileged. To me it looks like the elite and wealthy would love to return to a feudal form of society where they would have far more "rights" than the average citizen.

They, of course, feel a sense of entitlement. After all their families have managed to rise above the common mass through superior intelligence and ability. They fondly embrace Darwin's Law and feel that they have evolved to be more intelligent than the average "fool". Therefore they are uniquely qualified to be in charge.

Throughout history this class of people have managed to abuse their status and consequently they fear the less fortunate classes. In many nations, they have been able to enjoy their control and profit. In the United States they face a serious challenge as our system is based on equal rights.

The rich and those in control would of course love to enjoy the privilege of owning firearms but they would also like to restrict firearm ownership to the lower classes.

New York City is an outstanding example. If you are rich and influential or merely an important celebrity, YOU can get a license to own a firearm or even to carry one concealed. The average Joe is usually "shit out of luck". In reality the average Joe may have far more need for a firearm to use for self defense than say Donald Trump.



The basic concept of our nation is equal rights for all (although it didn't happen overnight). The two most important amendments in the Bill of Rights were the First and the Second in that order.



The First Amendment is under attack by powerful multinational corporations which control the news. The Second is also under attack but healthy and strong.

If we finally lose these two very important amendments we will be no different than other countries. Our experiment in freedom will end with a whimper.

In fact, if given the choice, I would NOT place the Second Amendment in the "First" position; it deserves its place as the clean-up batter the rights guaranteed under the First.

You sound like an old-time Florida populist. My mother's side of the family came into Florida just before the Civil War (horseback), and were thereby dubbed Crackers, a description my Mom took pride in. Despite all the racial history, I saw the advancement in attitudes in my own family. But always present was a distrust of the wealthy, esp. banks.

I can't brag that I am a "Cracker" as I was born in Pittsburgh and raised in Ohio near Cleveland. Both my father and uncle worked for Jones and Laughlin Steel Company during its heyday. I come from a background of union Democrats with a strong distrust of wealth and power, big corporations and Republicans.

Crackers are fascinating people, very independent and self reliant.

But here it is from my angle.

1. We have a civil right.
2. That civil right is to me, in place so that one may defend themselves or others(if they so decide).
3. I personally never struggled with civil rights, but my parents did. I count myself lucky.
4. I know how hard their struggle was, and I would not equate the right to bear arms with that struggle. The struggles do not compare at all.
5. It is a struggle none the less, however it is peacefully being fought in the courts.

I feel that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, restricting the government from delegating to me(and all others) how I(we) choose to defend "My(Our) Life, My(Our) Liberty and My(Our) Pursuit of Happiness".

Since the dawn of time there have been people who would deprive others of their lives, liberties and their pursuit of happiness. As far as I can see, there will always be those who will, with gave intent, try and deprive others of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to make their lives easy or more pleasurable. Be it the rapist, racist, robber, murderer, assaulter or any other group of those who commit violent crime or oppress. Our forefathers, I feel, knew this and took steps to insure that the people would always have a way, free from governmental intervention, to protect ourselves as we see fit.

"Is obedience to God . " I'd just bet it was the Sauron/Va-jayjay lookin' entity that knocked it out of the running .

Why can't I stop staring at it?

Well , that would be the va-jayjay .

The comparison is absurd.

It is a Civil Right to own tools for defense of self and community.

Cowardly hit-and-run internet discussion posts.

Hit and run post, and no response when asked to back up the assertion. Par for the anti course.

It would also seem that if you can't present a good argument you might consider changing your position. It should be obvious that you might just be wrong.

Hit and run posts are cowardly.

1. It is a Civil Right.

2. See post #144 for a succinct explaination on it's importance.

It's a right, and it's being violated, period.

Even more, the 2nd Amendment is the right that backs up all other rights if all else fails.

Blacks used that right to defend themselves when the government failed to recognize and protect other rights.

That's why the early gun laws in the US were targeted at disarming blacks. They never considered the laws would be used against whites.

This right is one of the civil rights that were violated.

is the moment all your rights are suspect to be taken away.

I mean, if we're comparing rights to each other, then there's always going to be a right that is more important than another - so the latter can be sacrificed for the sake of the more important right. It sets a precedent for using more rights to strip lesser rights until you are left with few or no rights. Just look where our right to be "safe" has taken us with the war on terror.

Rights are rights. They are all alike.