How the right to arms saved the non-violent civil rights protesters...

[spin]

Over at The Faculty Lounge, there are some pictures of sit-ins from the early 1960s. Regarding a 1963 sit-in in Jackson, Mississippi, TFL writes: “By one account, members of the all-White Jackson police force stood guard outside, while several FBI agents (the guys in back wearing shades) ‘observed’ from inside. That White guy at the counter, that’s Tougaloo professor and community activist Hunter Gray (John R. Salter) who helped organize the Jackson sit-ins. And that’s blood on his shirt. All of the protesters had been covered in slop, and some were beaten with brass knuckles and broken bottles.”

The non-violent Civil Rights protesters allowed themselves to be beaten in public while the media watched; the images helped win sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement in the North, and proved to be crucial in developing the political will for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a limited sense, the media’s presence provided some protection for the protesters; there was never a case in which a civil rights protester was murdered in front of media cameras. At night, when everyone had gone home, things were very different. As Salter later explained:

I was beaten and arrested many times and hospitalized twice. This happened to many, many people in the movement. No one knows what kind of massive racist retaliation would have been directed against grassroots black people had the black community not had a healthy measure of firearms within it.

When the campus of Tougaloo College was fired on by KKK-type racial night-riders, my home was shot up and a bullet missed my infant daughter by inches. We received no help from the Justice Department and we guarded our campus — faculty and students together — on that and subsequent occasions. We let this be known. The racist attacks slackened considerably. Night-riders are cowardly people — in any time and place — and they take advantage of fear and weakness.
http://volokh.com/2010/02/08/how-the-right-to-arms-saved-the-non-violent-civil-rights-protesters/

Title: Sit-in at Lunch Counter
Description: Civil rights sit-in by John Salter, Joan Trumpauer, and Anne Moody at Woolworth's lunch counter. A crowd of people pours sugar, ketchup and mustard on them in protest.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullRecord.asp?id=2381

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

2. I've cited Fannie Lou Hamer a few times on this forum

She attributed the fact that nobody ever tried to burn a cross on her lawn, or worse, to her letting it be widely known that she kept "a shotgun in every corner of the bedroom."

The fact that your campaign is non-violent doesn't mean you can't defend yourself when attacked.

[Tim01]

3. Damn, brave people. Props. nt

[SteveM]

4. Excellent post. Non-violent political strategies are often confused with submissiveness...

esp. with regards self-defense. The non-violent nature of the 50s-60s Civil Rights Movement was calculated to garner sympathy around the nation and the world. The photo clearly shows the dynamic of this strategy in action.

In your home, that's another matter: pick a fight off-stage, get a different response off-stage.

[spin]

5. Without black ownership of firearms, the civil rights movement might have failed ...

And our country would never have risen above the extremely racism that existed in the south.

We would not have Obama as our President today. Perhaps 50 years in the future, a black individual might have attained that position.

Gun control laws have deep roots in racism and even today are often designed to keep "those people" from owning guns.
Firearms can indeed be used to stop oppression and government supported terrorism.

The article in the original post states:

For Salter, the right to own a handgun was apparently a crucial part of his ability to exercise his right to defend himself and his family, which was a sine qua non of his ability to stay alive in order to exercise his First Amendment rights to advocate for enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yet in modern Chicago, decent law-abiding citizens are forbidden to own handguns. As I detailed in my amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago (pages 39–45), many people find that a handgun is best choice for family defense, especially in urban areas such as Chicago. As the history of the Civil Rights Movement demonstrates, the denial of the constitutional right to own a handgun could endanger other constitutional rights, particularly the rights of community organizers.
http://volokh.com/2010/02/08/how-the-right-to-arms-saved-the-non-violent-civil-rights-protesters/

So gun ownership and the mere presence of firearms in the black communities of the south helped the oppressed resist the violence of the KKK. Many more blacks might have died had they not been armed.

There's a lesson here for those willing to listen.

For more pictures of the civil rights movement and lunch counter sit ins visit:
http://www.crmvet.org/images/imgcoll.htm

edited to add link to pictures

[sharesunited]

6. Right. As though the presence of guns in the inner city is a positive influence.

And enables good choices.

[Tim01]

7. Depends entirely on who has the gun. Would you become dangerous if you had a gun? No. nf

[Glassunion]

8. I agree with half your statement...

It does enable good choices. Because possessing a firearm is, in its most simplest terms... A choice. If a law abiding citizen decides to make the choice to carry a firearm in order to defend themselves in their own home, in their neighborhood, they have done nothing more than make a choice.

After that, you and I will part ways. I believe that an individual, who has never committed a crime and does not intent to do so is not a criminal. You would label them otherwise, with no trial, no evidence, not even so much as testimony, in your eyes they are a criminal.

[spin]

9. Are you suggesting that people in the inner city are somehow ...

less capable of handling firearms safely and responsibly than those in rural areas? If so, I would only point out that many large cities in the United States do allow firearms ownership and even legal concealed carry.

I'm also curious as to why you would make such a statement. Are people in the big cities less intelligent or more prone to violence than those outside the city? I've lived in both large cities and rural areas. I've found people to be basically the same despite cultural differences. Hopefully, your comment isn't racist as many minorities live in large cities. If unfortunately it is, let me inform you that in my experience people of all races are basically the same. When my daughter worked for the first stage of the census, she said that she found the people in the lower class and predominately minority areas of the cities were far more friendly and helpful than those who lived in the country. She encountered more impolite and unfriendly, even aggressive, people in the country.

Having the ability to own a firearm and the training and the proficiency to use it safely and responsibly enables the owner to have a much better chance of surviving a violent criminal attack. While it's a persons individual decision, I believe that deciding to own a firearm can indeed prove to be a very good choice. But owning a firearm involves great responsibility, you have to know yourself and your limitations. Not everyone should own a firearm.

edited to expand comments

[Glassunion]

10. You are trying logic.

That will not succeed.

[sharesunited]

12. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09taj.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_schoolgirl_14_.html

http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/Little-Girl-Shot-in-Home-Invasion-at-Neighbors/UI_13SyTTk-PI-b8ZfyHjw.cspx

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/Teen_Girl_Shot_in_Little_Village

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/19931720/detail.html

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15414886/detail.html

http://cbs4.com/local/rebeca.perez.miami.2.1446340.html

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/hammond-teen-girl-shot-in-head.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/30/local/me-baldwin30

http://www.wgal.com/news/19423555/detail.html

[spin]

15. From your first link ...

Indeed, at least 20 people were within sight of the gunfight among well-known members of the Sex Money Murder subset of the Bloods gang 15 months ago, but the case remains unsolved because not a single one will testify or even describe what they saw to investigators. The witnesses include Vera Lee, Tajahnique’s grandmother, who declined to be interviewed for this article. People who have spoken to her about the shooting said she would not talk to the police for fear she would “have to move out of the country.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09taj.html?_r=1

From your second link:

As Vada Vasquez underwent emergency brain surgery, cops hunted for a bicycle-riding gunman who fired wildly at a man suspected of being a snitch.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_schoolgirl_14_.html#ixzz0f6giEJpo
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_schoolgirl_14_.html

From your third link:

DETROIT (WXYZ) - Police are searching for three men who may have been posing as cops when they barged into a house and fired a gunshot that hit a child in the home next door. Police say the random shot grazed the innocent little girl in the shoulder.

Police are searching for the suspects who identified themselves as police to the occupants of the home on St. Mary's Street on the city's northwest side. The bogus officers forced their way in and bound three people in that home with zip ties in what investigators say may have been a robbery attempt.
http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/Little-Girl-Shot-in-Home-Invasion-at-Neighbors/UI_13SyTTk-PI-b8ZfyHjw.cspx

From your fourth link:

A 17-year-old girl sitting on a neighbor’s porch was wounded in a gang-related shooting Thursday night in the Southwest Side’s Little Village neighborhood.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/Teen_Girl_Shot_in_Little_Village



From your fifth link:

Neighbors said the bullet came from out of nowhere. Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld said a street fight between two groups of men led to the shooting and that the girl was not the intended target.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/19931720/detail.html


I could go on but I think that we can agree that you are talking about the criminal misuse of firearms that is in most cases gang related.

Obviously, criminals and especially criminal gangs commit many of the shootings that we read about on a daily basis and the murders they commit are a large percentage of the annual death statistics commit by firearm. Still gang violence and criminal activity occurs in cites with strong gun laws such as Chicago. Every city that has a high violence rate has its own story. Perhaps this is Chicago's:

May 7, 2009
Chicago has experienced a rise in youth violence, particularly in its inner-city neighborhoods. There have already been 36 school students who have been killed so far this year, which is troubling, and many young people have been hurt in the shootings.

One factor causing the violence is the large-scale demolition of the city’s public housing developments. When the “projects” were torn down, over 20,000 families were sent to other neighborhoods. This means that over 100,000 poor people had to find a new place to live. Nearly 90 percent ended up moving to other poor neighborhoods in Chicago that were as crime-ridden as the projects. This also meant that the kids had to cross gang boundaries. It is not an accident that youth violence is occurring in and around Chicago schools because gangs spend a lot of time recruiting in school areas. The youth who ended up in new schools were assumed to represent an enemy gang, even if they had no gang membership.

***snip***

Chicago also has some of the most corrupt and ineffective police. In low income minority neighborhoods, residents and police still don’t get along. The result is that people feel unsafe and don’t rely on the law to come to their aid. Instead, they will sometimes take matters into their own hands, which can lead to further escalations in violence.

The city needs to spend time and money providing opportunities for youth in some of these neighborhoods. Most of the resources are in the elite areas of the city, near the Lakefront, but they are most needed in the middle and working-class neighborhoods. Hopefully this recent violence will serve as a wakeup call for Mayor Daley’s administration.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/07/what%E2%80%99s-fueling-chicago%E2%80%99s-violence/

While the violent crime rate has been decreasing dramatically in the last few years, gang associated crime is one area we need to combat in smarter ways. I believe the police should treat and target gangs as terrorist organizations (which basically they are). I also firmly believe that we should legalize some drugs such as marijuana to take the profit motive out of dealing these drugs. If our government would finally stop selling out to the big corporations who use illegal immigrants as a new form of slave labor and finally establish a reasonable immigration policy, we might stop the spread of Mexican gangs across our country. Obviously, we need to improve education in our schools. I would suggest moving our educational system into the current century and using the computer age to interest and attract young minds. We also need to create meaningful and good paying jobs in this nation. Joining a drug gang and engaging in the drug business can be far more profitable in the long run when the only other choice is flipping hamburgers or working as a store clerk or day laborer.

So yes, we agree that criminals and criminal gangs are a BIG problem. But let me inform you that they are not just a problem in the inner city or the big urban areas. They have invaded suburbia and even the rural areas of our country and they are prospering.

Draconian gun control is not the answer. Gun control has been directed mainly at honest people who are not the problem. Criminals and especially drug gangs can always easily obtain firearms. The drug gangs can smuggle firearms into the country for their own use and also to sell on the street to more common criminals. If you can smuggle tons of marijuana into our country, you can easily smuggle firearms in.

If we don't do something about the criminal drug gangs in the near future, I predict out country will become another Mexico with all their drug gang problems. Please note that Mexico has very strict gun laws.

The Mexican Constitution guarantees the right of Mexicans to possess arms. Even so, gun control laws in Mexico are very strict, and police discretion in enforcement makes possession of firearms of greater than .22 very difficult.

***snip***

Today, notwithstanding the constitutional right, arms possession in Mexico is severely restricted by a wide network of laws. Article 160 of the Federal Penal Code authorizes government employees to carry guns. Article 161 requires a license to carry or sell handguns. Article 162 provides penalties for violations, and also bans the stockpiling of arms without permission. Article 163 states that handguns may only be sold by mercantile establishments, not by individuals. Further, handgun carry permit applicants must post a bond, must prove their need, and must supply five character references.

***snip***

Title Two of the Federal Law of Firearms allows possession and carrying of handguns in a calibers of .380 or less, although some calibers are excluded, most notably .357 magnum and 9mm parabellum.

Members of agricultural collectives and other rural workers are allowed to carry the aforesaid handguns, .22 rifles, and shotguns, as long as they stay outside of urban areas, and obtain a license.

Hunters and target shooters may obtain licenses for the above types of firearms, as well as higher-powered rifles. There are a variety of exceptions for particular guns, detailed in the Library of Congress volume cited at the end of this entry. Gun collecting is allowed, with a license and registration. Possession of firearms for home defense is legally permitted. All guns must be registered with the Ministry of National Defense within 30 days of acquisition. Licensees may only buy ammunition for the caliber of gun for which they are licensed.

In practice, possession of firearms above .22 caliber is severely restricted. As with much of the rest of Mexican law enforcement, corruption is a major element of the gun licensing system.
http://www.davekopel.com/Espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm

[sharesunited]

17. Stop the proliferation of guns and ammo and you stop the problem.

It's simply not worth having all that deadly, efficient, and convenient weaponry out there.

[Tim01]

22. Gangs began buying guns by the case from overseas, in the 80s.

I just finished reading the autobiography of of "monster" Kody Scott of the L.A. Crips. When he was released from prison in 87 he was a little surprised to find his troops were now carrying fully auto rifles. Scott had been murdering people with shotguns and handguns for years. He got his name from the viciousness of his beatings on the street.

Just to repeat. The inner city gangs are buying their guns by the case from other countries.

[Katya Mullethov]

31. Was that 6 years for murder ?

Monster himself says that if he had been just a few months older, he would have been given 30 years .


Somehow I doubt that .

[Tim01]

37. I'm not really sure.

I will be the first person to tell you that I can be terrible about details, especially when it comes to a time line. The reason I know the year 87 is because the book is siting here.
My point is that he is the one who says they are buying weapons from over seas.

[rd_kent]

38. You are like a broken record. You seem to have 4 or 5 cut and paste subject lines ready to go.

geesh!

[spin]

64. You have suggested before that we just stop making guns ...

and the supply would drive up or become so expensive that the average citizen could not afford them.

And it has been pointed out that we could take those steps and the criminal element would just smuggle in firearms manufactured in other countries. There would be a demand for firearms and the black market would supply this demand.

Like most of the people who oppose firearm ownership, you want to limit firearms for honest citizens even if that means they will become easy prey for the predators. The fact that more people will be murdered, raped and assaulted doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

More people might buy into your idea if the police would enforce existing law and punish those who own and use firearms for criminal activity. If you have a prior conviction as a felon and you have lost your rights to own firearms and you get caught with one, you should spend many, many years in prison. You should be so damn old when you finally get out that your testosterone level has dropped to the level that you no longer pose a serious problem to anyone.

Perhaps a violent criminal with an extensive felony record should be neutered like a male house cat that keeps pissing all over the house. Somehow, I don't think that this approach will ever be approved. Still, it would probably be very effective.

But until you can prove that you can get firearms out of the hands of criminals, don't attempt to take them from honest people or limit their availability.

[aliendroid]

80. hey, I make my own ammo

even though we think the federal government has the ability to be fascist, or even state or city governments, let's let them control all the guns also, that has never lead to any problems in human history.

but the real issue here is that I make my own ammo, so how are you going to cut me off from having ammo available? I can just go get some lead and cast it whenever I want, you would have to make electricity illegal, lead illegal and many other normal things illegal to remove my ability to make bullets. Not to mention that I have the right to have bullets available if I'm too lazy to make my own at any given time that I want to go shoot at the range.

[aliendroid]

83. using anecdotal evidence = fail

One of the listed reasons democrats should own guns counter argues the anecdotal evidence that anti-gun people use all the time.

The point that is made is that the pro-gun people could spend the next few centuries tabulating up all the individual stories of all the people who have been eliminated by their government because they were not able to defend themselves but that kind of argument is weak and should not be used.

So we will simply refrain from drawing up a 100+ million page book on each individual story of how gun control has destroyed an individual's life.

But it is best to use real argument.

It's also good to allow the anti-gun people to displace how bigoted, intolerant they are and how much they want to take the guns away from "those people" who do not have the same color skin as them.

[paulsby]

21. it's frankly a soft bigotry

this idea that you can;'t trust those "inner city" (which is largely a euphemism for minorities) with guns.

it's a pretty common sentiment. and i use the term "sentiment" for a reason. because it is certainly not a logical idea.

[Euromutt]

75. In fairness, the correlation between population density and tighter gun laws is readily explicable..

... without having to attribute anything to racism, though racism has, admittedly, all too often played a role in the application of the law.

In crude terms, humanity developed cities because having more people living in closer proximity to one another made it easier for all those people to interact, and thus get things done. Unfortunately, this works both for good and for ill. While living in cities puts customers closer to merchants and craftsmen, patients closer to healers, etc. it also puts burglars closer to residences and businesses, traffickers in contraband closer to buyers, footpads and muggers closer to pedestrian traffic, etc. In short, higher population density facilitates crime, and thus it follows that urban areas will have more crime--both in relative and absolute terms--than suburban or rural areas.

The urbanization that stemmed from the Industrial Revolution only exacerbated this, with more poor people flocking to the cities in search of work. In the case of the United States, a contributing factor was the influx of immigrants, "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore," in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the migration of blacks from the South to the industrial centers of the North during the same period. As a result, it simply in the nature of large American cities to have comparatively high levels of both crime and ethnic minorities (though the two are not causally related).

It's not surprising that large cities have--where not pre-empted by state law--adopted the most stringent gun control laws in an effort to curb violent crime, for the very simply reason that they have more of it. I'll grant, it was worth a try. But it's been almost a full century since New York state adopted the Sullivan laws, and during that whole time, tighter gun control has not had any demonstrable effect in reducing violent crime. There are any number of problems with an assertion like "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," not least that when you acknowledge that different gun laws are appropriate for different locales, it logically follows that differences in crime level are not due to differences in gun laws (otherwise, Cheyenne should have a higher crime rate than Chicago). Moreover, there is no evidence that Chicago's gun laws have ever been instrumental in reducing violent crime and keeping it down; ditto for D.C. and NYC.

It's past time to give up on the fiction that they do.

[spin]

76. I can follow the logic that the big cities use ...

It's obvious that the close quarters of a big city and availability of legal firearms is a bad mix. Sometimes the obvious is proven false. Firearms are ubiquitous in the urban areas of Florida and yet the firearms in the hands of honest citizens are rarely misused.

Many who oppose firearm ownership point out that a honest citizen can snap and misuse his firearm and indeed it does happen. But it's not all that common or with 80 million people owning firearms our homicide rate would be many many times what it is today. It is true that firearms and alcohol are a bad mix and often drinking leads to an event where a previously honest citizen makes a tragic decision and grabs his gun to resolve a problem. But again, such events are relatively rare.

Most people who misuse firearms have a criminal record leading up to the event. The individual hoists a lot of red flags before he commits a homicide or seriously injures someone with a firearm. Unfortunately, all too often our legal system pampers him and he loses respect for it.

I believe that allowing citizens to own firearms in large urban areas changes the nature of crime. Criminals are more hesitant to invade an occupied home or in the areas where concealed carry is allowed, criminals are less likely to attempt to mug an individual. Bad guys fear armed citizens more than they do cops. They are familiar with cops and know how much they can get away with. An armed citizen is harder to predict. First, the bad guy doesn't know that the victim is armed and he may find out only after the citizen pulls his weapon and starts shooting.

To a bad guy an armed citizen can ruin your whole day.

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Like moths to the flame are they ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vod9DL4IhBM

Work hard or lurk even harder .

[PavePusher]

13. The Civil Rights movement was only in the inner cities?

Huudathunkit...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Gun control is rooted in racism in this country. What does your knee jerk opposition to

firearms make you?

[sharesunited]

16. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09taj.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/200...

http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/Little-Girl-Shot-...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/Teen_Girl_Sh...

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/19931720/detail.html

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15414886/detail.html

http://cbs4.com/local/rebeca.perez.miami.2.1446340.html

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/hammond-teen...

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/30/local/me-baldwi...

http://www.wgal.com/news/19423555/detail.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Non responsive as usual

Take your one trick pony antics elsewhere if you can not muster even a shred of logic to defend your prejudices.

[sharesunited]

24. Those stories speak for themselves. Guns and ammo are a menace.

And the original post which attempts to glorify their availability in the civil rights struggle ignores what a scourge they truly are.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Actually, it's simple historical fact that the clan riders were shut down by armed civilians

and NOT by the appointed and elected police mechanisms of the time. Elected and appointed Men and Women ignoring their duties under the 14th amendment.

So the people did what they had to, and guns enabled their protection. If you have information to the contrary, please share, because I have encountered it in many a history book, and even school textbook.

[sharesunited]

28. You know why that claim is exaggerated?

Because a black person pointing a gun at a white person would have been vigorously prosecuted.

Moreover, to the extent that this was a guns-as-solution-to guns situation, the presence of guns in the first place was the cause of the problem.

To wit, Medgar Evers, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner.

How are you going to march a man out to a lynching tree except at the point of gun?

[Katya Mullethov]

33. How indeed

I would suggest the prefered method is to ring his bell and drag him out by the ankles .

[sharesunited]

35. By unarmed Klansmen?

I thought they were advised in the premises that a black household might own a gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. The KKK certainly had access to firearms as well.

but they did not always make use of them. And even back then, it's hard for a hooded white man, trying to burn someone's house down, to make a criminal complaint against anyone shooting at him.

Union Army veterans in mountainous Blount County, Alabama, organized 'the anti-Ku Klux.' They put an end to violence by threatening Klansmen with reprisals unless they stopped whipping Unionists and burning black churches and schools. Armed blacks formed their own defense in Bennettsville, South Carolina and patrolled the streets to protect their homes.

National sentiment gathered to crack down on the Klan, even though some Democrats at the national level questioned whether the Klan existed or was a creation of nervous Southern Republican governors. Many southern states began to pass anti-Klan legislation.

Now, this is not to say that firearms were never used, even by what qualify as citizen militias, against blacks. There are incidents where that did indeed happen. But again, mis-use does not justify prohibition.

[spin]

72. The KKK was a bunch of bullies ...

being a bully is great fun until you run into someone who can kick your ass. Bullies are not known for being brave.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Your ignornace is showing (AGAIN!)

Armed civilians, black and white were what stopped the night riders. Knowing that their white robes were no protection against a bullet or shotgun pellets over time forced the Klan to change its terror tactics. One of those new tactics was to restrict the availability of weapons to blacks. Its where gun control started in the US.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Unlawful use of guns and ammo is a menace.

Going beyond that is ascribing human intent or malice to an inanimate object.

It may not sound like it to you, but to me, it sounds like an excuse for predatory humans.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. here:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."

Though I would disagree with the use of 'privilege', which should read 'right'.

[sharesunited]

23. How quaint. From 1878. Failing to realize that this pretend "right" had become moot as of 1865.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. This right was legally exercised en masse as recently as 1992.

Second day (Thursday, April 30)
Although the day began relatively quietly, by mid-morning on the second day violence appeared widespread and unchecked as heavy looting and fires had started being witnessed across Los Angeles County. The Korean American community, seeing the police force's abandonment of Koreatown, organized armed security teams composed of store workers, who defended their livelihoods from assault by the mob. Open gun battles were televised as Korean shopkeepers were forced to shoot at the mob to protect their businesses, and most likely their lives, from crowds of violent looters.

-Peter Kivisto, Georganne Rundblad, ed (2000). Multiculturalism in the United States: Current Issues, Contemporary Voices. Pine Forge Press.

THAT is the proper function of a citizen militia. That was a lawful and appropriate use of firearms by civilians in defense of the self or state.

Obsolete indeed.

[sharesunited]

27. And since 1992, how many thousands of people have been wrongfully shot in Los Angeles?

Yet you insist it is all worth it?

Your cost-benefit analysis is faulty.

[X_Digger]

29. So you admit that you were wrong to say the "right is moot"

and move the goal posts to talk about "cost benefit"?

Glad to see you admit that at least one of your arguments is fallacious.

I expect to refer you back to your post, should you ever trot out this canard again.

[sharesunited]

30. Oh there is an entire line of jurisprudence which erroneously perpetuates the myth of a "right."

It simply reflects the gun love of the nation, and will eventually need to be atoned for.

In the meantime, Carry On Dying.

[X_Digger]

32. Even better, you admit that the judicial system agrees.

Again, I'll have to refer you back to your own post in the future when you assert otherwise.

You're two for two today. Care for the hat trick?

[sharesunited]

34. Plessy v. Ferguson was once the law of the land.

Then Shelley v. Kraemer came along.

And then Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka came along.

Times change, and so do interpretations of the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

36. Cruikshank, Miller, Heller, and soon to be McDonald.. yes, they do. n/t

[sharesunited]

39. Unsustainable over the long term. Too many innocents dying.

Too much rampant injustice for the sake of gun love and ammo amore.

That's not a socially responsible balancing of interests.

[X_Digger]

40. 230 years is not 'long term' enough for you?

If your argument had any merit, it would have been argued and decided in the 80's or 90's, when crime, including crime committed with guns was much much higher.

Your gun-prude appeal to emotion makes less sense today, when crime is down.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. One way innocents die, at the hands of fists, feet, and clubs is to disarm them

by making 'junk guns' like 'saturday night specials' inaccessible to the poor. When you disarm the weak, you make the powerful, just that much more powerful.

You would disarm this homeless man:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20061011&slug=shooting11m

Unacceptable.

[rrneck]

42. All you have to do

is produce a remedy for the disparity of force between the assailant and the victim. Can you do that?

[sharesunited]

43. How is this disparity being handled in the UK and Australia?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. It isn't.

Nor is the comparison valid, as there are significant pre-existing deltas between not only firearm use, but murder by all other causes, as well as suicides by all other means.

[sharesunited]

47. America is especially violent so the general public should have guns?

That's backwards.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Remove the question mark, and you've got it right.

There simply is no other defense for a vast percentage of our population. The police number 0.00053% of the population, last I added it all up. They cannot, and per the Supreme Court, are not responsible for protecting you, mission statement or no. Even the successful complete removal of all firearms would leave millions defenseless in the face of physical assault by other means.

The criminal mis-use of firearms is no justification for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

If you want to talk about real measures to prevent the proliferation of firearms to prohibited individuals, or holding people responsible for criminal assault, or any number of issues, I'm totally on board. But I will not be disarmed by people sharing your mindset. Never. It goes against everything this country was built to protect.

[sharesunited]

51. Keep your gun, and enjoy it as a rare collectible. That's the best compromise you will get.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Why do I have to compromise?

I'm winning. Tomorrows forecast calls for continued win.

[sharesunited]

56. Two words: Tipping point.

At some point, when the rampage mass murders are happening daily, the nation wakes up and asks WTF.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Said murders are declining every year.

Not increasing, declining. Even in the face of expanded concealed carry, which ostensibly can be assumed to INCREASE the frequency in which you will encounter armed people on a daily basis. In the face of a declining economy, which historically has propped up violence levels of all sorts. Accidents are down. They've been trending down for 30+ years.

And on the flipside, VPC, Handgun Control Inc, the Brady Campaign, all have reached historic low levels of support. Additional gun control measures have reached un-heard of levels of disapproval.

If there's a tipping point, we're nowhere near it.

[sharesunited]

59. I understand that America is sick with gun love. That's why I speak out against it.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I understand that America is sick with violence, racism, and a whole host of disparities

that can make people more vulnerable to violent attack.

For these reasons, I speak out in favor of law abiding citizens to arm themselves, and learn how to use them, and the legal implications of doing so.

[spin]

65. delete...reply to wrong post. (n/t)

[spin]

66. If America is indeed sick with gun love, why is your side losing ...

and losing badly.

What major new gun control laws have those who are so sick with gun love passed in the last decade?

Why isn't Obama with his control of Congress, pushing for another assault weapons ban or for national registration?

America is far from being sick with gun love or for that matter being in love with guns.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

69. Two words.

Human being. Show some compassion toward them and give up these utopian solutions based on esoteric unprovable theories.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. Tipping-point was reached in 1994 and other countries are approaching it.

By "tipping-point", I refer to reducing the restrictions on individual self-defense and access by the law-abiding public to effective tools of self-defense, and of putting in place laws to protect the right of self-defense.

In 1994, the election removed from office many who were opposed to self-defense. Ever since then we have seen a tidal wave of laws to promote and protect self-defense.

Recently, the UK has begun to examine how far they have gone in rendering the citizen helpless in the face of violent crime and are starting to reverse that trend.

As more guns are put into the population, the crime rate, murder rate, etc, have come down. We are rapidly moving away from your "tipping-point" and towards stability.

[aliendroid]

79. you anti-gun people never stop

"At some point, when the rampage mass murders are happening daily, the nation wakes up and asks WTF."


isn't this what you anti-gunners said about concealed carry permits, they would result in massive shootouts in the streets? Yet after the concealed carry movement got underway violent crime rates have dropped.
The solution to all the mass shootings that occur in the gun free zones is to eliminate the gun free zones!

[rrneck]

48. I'm sure plenty of people

get knifed and beaten over there too. Do you have a solution for them as well or you satisfied to offer yet another sweeping generalization involving a weapon free utopia expressed in some inscrutable koan?

[sharesunited]

50. From their perspective, the threat or need, such as it is, does not justify the purported remedy.

In other words, the "cure" is worse than the illness.

They looked at our situation and said No Thanks Yanks.

I share their perspective.

[rrneck]

54. LOL! It's nice to find such predictability in the world.

Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

What solution do you offer someone who is being assaulted by another individual or multiple individuals armed with knives, clubs, fists or feet?

[krispos42]

61. So at what homicide rate would we be allowed to own guns again?

Or rather, at what homicide rate would you decided to recognize the 2nd amendment again?

1 per 100k/year? 0.1 per 100k/year?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Wait, really?

You think we would be better off today if there were NO firearms in Los Angeles county, and that there had been no resistance to the destruction of an entire cultural bloc of the city?

You think that would make things BETTER?

[sharesunited]

55. You see a historical moment of civil unrest as being worth the continuous cost in lives.

Your scale of balancing interests is not calibrated the same as mine.

Which I attribute to your affection for a particular means of capriciously inflicting death.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Your cost in lives balance could be applied to many, many things.

Are you sure this is the rock upon which you wish to base your argument?

[sharesunited]

60. No other thing which is solely intended and designed to kill

and so utterly lacks informed consent and assumption of risk.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Widebody commercial aircraft like the 747 were originally designed and built based on military

purposes.

Nor would I accept your artifical limitation on the field of comparison.

[spin]

71. As explained many times, firearms have many uses ...

if they were solely intended and designed to kill, then the overwhelming majority of the 80 million gun owners in our country have failed to use them correctly.

[rrneck]

67. Support the reasons for your calibration. nt

[spin]

73. Yes I do...

The fact that the civil rights movement succeeded has enabled our country to move forward and come closer to its promise of being a city on a hill.

Oppressing millions of people merely because of skin color is not something to be proud of. This is February, Black History Month, take a little time of from DU and study Black history and remind yourself of the contribution that African Americans have made to our society. Many of these people contributed to our progress in an oppressive environment where they were viewed as being inferior.

Today we sill have racism in our country but it doesn't limit the lives of minorities in the same manner that it did before the civil right movement. Minorities now have a better chance at living the American Dream and many succeed. Our country benefits every day in many different ways from the efforts of minorities. Let's not forget the Obama would more than likely have never had a successful career in politics let alone held the office of President had it not been for the success of the civil rights movement.

But you do make a point that firearms are often misused. Criminal and drug gang activity is a matter that we can address by better law enforcement and by ensuring that our justice system treats those who have a serious criminal history as a true danger to our society. We could easily drop the violent crime rate by 40% or more by simple law enforcement and perhaps much further if we stopped criminalizing drugs such as marijuana.

To give up firearms means that a future government might decide to oppress another minority in the same manner the blacks were oppressed in the past. Perhaps this time the government would chose to ostracize Jews or Muslims and would stand by and allow skin heads to terrorize their homes and families.

[aliendroid]

82. using anecdotal evidence = fail

One of the listed reasons democrats should own guns counter argues the anecdotal evidence that anti-gun people use all the time.

The point that is made is that the pro-gun people could spend the next few centuries tabulating up all the individual stories of all the people who have been eliminated by their government because they were not able to defend themselves but that kind of argument is weak and should not be used.

So we will simply refrain from drawing up a 100+ million page book on each individual story of how gun control has destroyed an individual's life.

But it is best to use real argument.

It's also good to allow the anti-gun people to displace how bigoted, intolerant they are and how much they want to take the guns away from "those people" who do not have the same color skin as them.

[aliendroid]

84. using anecdotal evidence = fail

One of the listed reasons democrats should own guns counter argues the anecdotal evidence that anti-gun people use all the time.

The point that is made is that the pro-gun people could spend the next few centuries tabulating up all the individual stories of all the people who have been eliminated by their government because they were not able to defend themselves but that kind of argument is weak and should not be used.

So we will simply refrain from drawing up a 100+ million page book on each individual story of how gun control has destroyed an individual's life.

But it is best to use real argument.

It's also good to allow the anti-gun people to displace how bigoted, intolerant they are and how much they want to take the guns away from "those people" who do not have the same color skin as them.

[aliendroid]

81. what are you saying?

"Right. As though the presence of guns in the inner city is a positive influence. And enables good choices."
by sharesunited


Are you an elitist? So I guess "those people" over there in the inner city are "bad people" and should not have guns. Hilter felt that way about the Jews and actually passed a law that removed their right to own firearms because those people over there in that ghetto were just plain "bad"!

[paulsby]

20. nice post. i read this the other day over at volokh but never got around to posting it here

it's quite insightful imo

[spin]

70. The events show how firearms can influence an oppressive government ...

Obviously the local authorities and the state officials had little interest in changing their treatment of minorities. They had failed to provide equal education and opportunity and had allowed terrorist organizations to impose fear on the black community.

I had a good black friend and co-worker who grew up in these times and we often talked. His stories of how his family had faced prejudice and discrimination were saddening. He overcame the events of his childhood and joined the army. He was able to get a good education and after leaving the army, he was employed by a major national company and had a long and worthwhile career. He married a woman who became an executive in an insurance company and their children grew up to become productive members of our society. One was a state highway trooper in Florida and one I believe made a career out of the military.

Some truly brave people of all races participated in the non violent civil rights movement. Their efforts succeeded because they had the ability to protect their homes and family with firearms. Without that ability, the KKK and other organization might have caused so much terror and bloodshed that the movement would have lost support.

[onehandle]

78. Hey, look! They're back!

Threatening a sitting President in broad daylight.