| Author | Post |
|---|
MetalChris
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | SW Asia |
| Posts: | 1196 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 04:32 am |
|
Gun Guys wrote:The looming Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case challenging DC's 30-year-old handgun ban, seems to be completely off the radar. Although there was a dramatic surge of attention when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March, very few articles, editorials, and news stories are being written about the long term viability of gun control in light of the Court's expected ruling. Absent from the Court's oral arguments was also a full vetting of the political and social context when the Second Amendment was written -- including the racist origins and purpose of the Second Amendment (see below).
It's as if the country is asleep at the wheel while a potential attack on America's freedom and ability to prevent and reduce gun violence is happening right before our very eyes. The Supreme Court holds in its hands the awesome responsibility of allowing and empowering the American people the "right" and the ability to reduce gun violence, protect our communities and national security. Lives are at stake. This is no hypothetical or dry legal theory we're debating.
To be sure, no one knows exactly how the Court will rule in the DC handgun ban case. But gun violence prevention advocates fear that the Court's conservative members could enshrine a new interpretation of the Second Amendment that "individuals" have a "right to keep and bear arms" -- a complete departure from the Court's own longstanding precedent and the robust history of gun control since the founding of our country.
Even if the Supreme Court ruling aligns itself more closely with the gun lobby interpretation, gun control laws will not immediately evaporate. But the impact of such a ruling would give ammunition to the gun lobby to challenge virtually any and all gun laws on the books on the federal, state and local level and consume enormous resources defending and litigating gun violence prevention measures.
The effect could be devastating, and yet there is very little discussion or debate about the potential of this shell-shocking case to American law and culture. Several legal analysts think that the Supreme Court will issue it's ruling sometime in mid-June of this year in a matter of weeks.
Perhaps most galling of all is that during the oral arguments to the Supreme Court, the justices seemed to be arguing the Second Amendment in a parallel universe.
In a remarkable essay first published in Mother Jones on March 20th Stephanie Mencimer writes in "Whitewashing the Second Amendment" about the racist origins of the Second Amendment.
At the very least it would be helpful if the justices decided the DC handgun ban case on an accurate reading of the social and political context, original documents, and an understanding of the history when the Second Amendment was actually written. (Justice Scalia who prides himself on being an ardent "originalist" should take note).
Stephanie Mencimer's remarkable essay is worth quoting at length:
"Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.
First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home.
Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.
Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner.
That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.
Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said.
Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery. (Riiiiight...)
This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.
None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")
Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.
In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men. (Well no @#$%, Sherlock. When the vast majority of violent crime in WA DC is being commited by young African American males, of course this is going to have a large (about .45 cal in diameter) impact on them!)
Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns."
Wow, just wow.
Last edited on Sun Jun 1st, 2008 11:57 pm by MetalChris
|
Stealth Potato
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 06:51 am |
|
Wow, that's hilarious.
The gun-grabbers apparently want it both ways - one moment, they're claiming that the original context of the Second Amendment is "outdated" and "irrelevant" and therefore should not be considered, and the next they're claiming that context was racist and is therefore an argument against contemporary gun rights!
The fact notwithstanding that this person's claims are simply ridiculous, this is a lovely little bit of cognitive dissonance.
One thing in particular that stood out:
Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
John Payton is obviously without a clue when it comes to constitutional law. What "new power to disarm state militias?" Where in the Constitution is that authority granted to the federal government, I wonder? It seems he does not even understand the most basic principles of the structure of our government.
|
MetalChris
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | SW Asia |
| Posts: | 1196 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 10:16 am |
|
Stealth Potato wrote: John Payton is obviously without a clue when it comes to constitutional law.
That's why he's w/ the NAACP.  
|
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 01:42 pm |
|
What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.
And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
|
tarzan1888
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
Where is my puke gif when I need it.
Tarzan
|
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Reno, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 957 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
Since D.C. is a place where Blacks outnumber whites, the NAACP is primarily stripping the civil rights of African Americans by agreeing that no-one in D.C. should have second amendment rights.
Web Page: The Racist Origins of Gun Control : http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm
Last edited on Sun Jun 1st, 2008 02:44 pm by Felid`Maximus
|
Toymaker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 02:59 am |
|
USAF_MetalChris wrote: Stealth Potato wrote: John Payton is obviously without a clue when it comes to constitutional law.
That's why he's w/ the NAACP.
Payton and his boss Julian Bond are modern day uncle toms working for the white liberal extreme left.
|
Pointman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 05:00 am |
|
| Sounds to me that black men need to carry guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. Since America has race equality, all men need to carry guns. Since America also has gender equality, everyone needs to carry a gun. Except for those who don't want to. And PETA members. And Rosie--now there's a good source of lamp oil.
|
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 2804 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 06:29 am |
|
SouthernBoy wrote: What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.
And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
My wife's from Salvador, Brasil - the slave capitol of the country and we visited there for 3.5 weeks this past Christmas and New Years and guess what? There is no racism there. The Europeans, the Africans, the Indians....they're ALL BRASILIANS FIRST.
But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.
|
dkd
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 01:38 pm |
|
BobCav wrote: SouthernBoy wrote: What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.
And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
My wife's from Salvador, Brasil - the slave capitol of the country and we visited there for 3.5 weeks this past Christmas and New Years and guess what? There is no racism there. The Europeans, the Africans, the Indians....they're ALL BRASILIANS FIRST.
But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.
most look for racism to present itself in a americanized form.
but racism in brazil and other latin american countries, as subtle as it may be still exists.
http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/index.html
http://www.brazzil.com/p16oct96.htm
Last edited on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 01:39 pm by dkd
|
Liko81
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, TX |
| Posts: | 487 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 02:07 pm |
|
dkd wrote: most look for racism to present itself in a americanized form.
but racism in brazil and other latin american countries, as subtle as it may be still exists.
http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/index.html
http://www.brazzil.com/p16oct96.htm
By "Americanized", you mean KKK/Neo-Nazi public demonstrations and "<Minority of Choice> Go Home!" protests over illegal immigration?
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 02:58 pm |
|
But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.
I don't know about the Ferengi Empire but absolutely correct on the money being made in racism. I'm not going to call any names but there are a lot of people that their livelyhood definitly depends on keeping racism alive and well and do everything they can to see that it flourishes. Unfortunately their followers can't see that and perfectly willing to drink the kool-aid.
|
tarzan1888
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
tarzan1888 wrote: Where is my puke gif when I need it.
Tarzan
I found it.
Tarzan
Attached Image (viewed 215 times):
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
Those who would like the other side of this coin--with some nice documentation to boot--should read Clayton Cramer's essay, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control."
It can be found at a number of sites with a google search, but this one reads as well as any: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
In the essay, Cramer argues convincingly that the history of so-called "gun control" laws in this nation is so tied to racism and denial of rights based on race that all such laws should be viewed as part of a "suspect class" of laws when they are up for judicial review. Laws viewed in such a way have such a history of being used for discrimination that the going in position before the courts is that they are unconstitutional and the burden falls on those supporting the law to prove it is not.
As an example, while one could make a very good case for a literacy test before voting, such tests have such history of being used to deny voting rights based on race that any court looking at such a requirement to vote is going to start from the position that any such test is a violation of voting rights until it can be proven they are not having the intent nor effect of denying the franchise based on race or other protected category.
In any event, I would argue that those most likely to be victims of crimes are the ones who are most likely to benefit from being able to legally possess the means of self defense. After all, 285 pound body builders traveling around with 5 of their lifting/marital arts buddies are a LOT less likely to be mugged than is a lone, 110 pound, black, gay, Jewish woman who may be victimized for any number of reasons including perceived inability to put up a fight or one form of prejudice or another. The lone woman beneifts a LOT more from having a gun than does the gang of men.
In any event, Cramer's essay is a great read, and will only take about 10 minutes.
Charles
EDIT: Fixed Link - BobCav
Last edited on Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 08:44 pm by
|
icode
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
The link doesn't work for me 
|
like_the_roman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
icode wrote:
The link doesn't work for me
Remove the last period from the URL.
|
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 2804 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 08:42 pm |
|
dkd wrote: BobCav wrote: SouthernBoy wrote: What a load of BS. I have to wonder if any of these people have ever really studied history and if they know the origins of slavery in the colonies. Slaves were first brought to the colonies in 1619 by the Dutch. And the number of 12 million we frequently see bantered about begin brought here? Not true. Almost all of them were taken to Brazil with about 650,000 coming to what was to become the United States.
And how did all of this happen? Shipping which was not Southern because the South had no commercial shipping to speak of. Anyway, I could go on about this but y'all can read as well as I can. I'll just say that the invention that escalated this was the cotton gin at the end of the 18th century. It's effect on the economy of both the North and the South and of slavery was tremendous.
My wife's from Salvador, Brasil - the slave capitol of the country and we visited there for 3.5 weeks this past Christmas and New Years and guess what? There is no racism there. The Europeans, the Africans, the Indians....they're ALL BRASILIANS FIRST.
But there's far too much money to be made in racism, so it flourishes here in the Ferengi Empire.
most look for racism to present itself in a americanized form.
but racism in brazil and other latin american countries, as subtle as it may be still exists.
http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/index.html
http://www.brazzil.com/p16oct96.htm
Good point and I stand corrected and should have said they don't have racism like we have here. We've perfected it and profited from it, while they have for the most part, gotten over it and moved on.
|
icode
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
like_the_roman wrote: icode wrote:
The link doesn't work for me
Remove the last period from the URL.
Um yeah, didn't catch that one  Thanks!
|
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Tennessee |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 5th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.
understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.
I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.
the single largest racist organization in America today is the NAACP, and yet they are the ones who repeatedly wish to deem everything, but themselves, to be a part of some mass global caucasian conspiracy designed to oppress teh black man.
why in the world can America not actually debate issues and try to show how your side is right, instead of making everything about race and trying to prove that the other side is racist? that article makes me nautious in ways that I never knew I could be nautious.
|
imperialism2024
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 5th, 2008 03:42 pm |
|
unreconstructed1 wrote: you know I really have to wonder when we reached the point to where the end all be all of any argument is the race card. want a politician to vote a certain way? point out the "racist"aspects of teh alternate opinion. want SC justices to rule in favor of DC? just start calling the second ammendment racist. it is statistical fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. is this racist? yes, blacks face the business end of a gun more often than whites, but were they not commiting criminal acts, manyt of those instances would never have happened.
understand, I am not saying that all blacks are criminals, but statistically, blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.
I for one am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being racist. 2A is racist, anti @a is racist, cops are racist, robbers are racist, money is racist, the lack thereof is racist, etc.
Well, that's the interesting thing... while blacks are statistically committing more crimes, they are also disproportionately crime victims. But coupled with the fact that gun control hits blacks harder than whites (lower socioeconomic status gives them less money to pay for their rights, may issue states encourage racist discrimination, etc), blacks are disarmed when they in fact need to be armed more than whites. It's fairly ridiculous that the people who most want to "save" blacks from gun violence, through gun control, are in effect putting them at a greater risk of being victims.
Anyhow, the "racism" trump card is indeed ridiculous, but then again so are the "Muslim", "illegal immigrant", and other cards we see around here all the time.
|
Current time is 01:59 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
