"America's gun problem is not a race problem"

[kwassa]

from conservative commentator David Frum, a surprising opinion.

The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together.

Those young men in Baton Rouge who are killing each other in such horrific numbers do not manufacture their own guns. They did not organize the gun trade that brings the guns to their town. They did not write the laws that prevent their town government from acting against guns. They carry guns -- and misuse guns -- thanks to a national system of gun regulation that makes guns easily accessible to those least likely to use guns responsibly.

The gun laws intended to put guns into the hands of "good guys" are the laws that also multiply guns in the hands of "bad guys" -- bad guys who might not have become such bad guys if the guns had not been available to their hands.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

[flyingfysh]

1. People forget one of the main reasons for the second amendment

The Southern states wanted it, so they could maintain slave patrols who would prowl the roads looking for slaves echo were not where they belonged. There is a scholarly about this by Sally Haddon, available on Amazon.

[linuxman]

2. Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with not wanting a standing army...

If slavery was the reason behind it, why do so many state constitutions written afterwards (after slavery, even) include provisions regarding the right to keep and bear arms.?

Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just pure conjecture?

[flyingfysh]

3. Here is an explanation

http://www.carltbogus.com/edmund-a-blog/72-the-hidden-history-of-the-second-amendment-redux

Also, see the Slave Patrols book. It is published by Harvard Press, and describes an ugly chapter of our history.

[linuxman]

5. .

"My argument is based on circumstantial evidence; I do not claim that Madison said this was his motivation"

Ignoring that, let's assume that slavery was indeed the reason for guaranteeing the RKBA, entirely independent of having just fought a goddamn global empire which sought specifically to disarm the colonists. Why would so many states YEARS after slavery was over still enshrine such an amendment in their state constitutions? For that matter, why wouldn't the founders outline slavery as a reason for having the second in the first place? They certainly weren't afraid of being recognized as slave owners, especially when you consider that the three-fifths compromise in regard to slave "Votes" highlights slavery as an itegral part of the constitution.

Also, as all of these slave revolts had slaves arming their selves with the very firearms which the 2nd would later guarantee the right of citizens to own, wouldn't the 2nd just guarantee that slaves would always be able to acquire firearms with which to revolt? In that case, drafting the 2nd would be awfully counterproductive, wouldn't it?



Utter nonsense.

[flamin lib]

9. It's ironic that this is presented by gunners as evidence of gun control as racist

and as not racist depending on the time of day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Can you provide an example of a 'gunner' claiming gun control is not racist?

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. I thought not...

[beevul]

66. Carl T Bogus?

Maybe cite some Bellesiles too while you're at it.


Everything old is new again!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. What flying fish is saying is TRUE!!

[NutmegYankee]

6. This is an intellectually dishonest viewpoint.

The main reason for the second amendment was to prevent a disarmed citizenry ruled by a large standing army. The first battles of the War for Independence, Lexington and Concord in the Northern State of Massachusetts, were fought because the British Soldiers had been tasked to disarm and destroy the weapons and supplies of the militias outside Boston.

After the war, the plan was to call up the citizenry to defend the nation if required like most other Republics then in existence. The overall concept of citizens having arms is tied to the Saxon tradition of every man having arms to support a battle if called upon. It was passed down through English culture to the Colonies, and then enshrined in the Constitution.


Northern Non-Slave States:

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17)

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21) 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

[jmg257]

7. Southern states did put a lot of thought into ensuring their militias were available

in case of uprising. Worked out well with the important notion of reducing the pretexts for large standing armies.

Good thing we don't have slavery any more. The distrust of large standing armies not so much.

[moondust]

10. It seems obvious

that without the threat of a bullet in the back to enforce obedience to the master the whole slave economy collapses. There's no way to chase down and corral 50 fleeing slaves with a bullwhip. There's no way for a significantly outnumbered slave owner to put down a revolt against him without the decisive advantage of instant death from the muzzle of a gun that may not even be close by.

I don't know if it was openly discussed at the time of passing the 2nd Amendment but it stands to reason that the southern states would want to do whatever they could to protect their slave economies from any future "gun grabbers."

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. That argument is evidence-free Colonism:

"Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He´d been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[moondust]

23. Nice try.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at how YOU would keep 50 slaves obediently working down on the farm to enrich you without the constant threat of a bullet in the back and/or a sizeable paid army on horseback wielding something less than "lethal force from a distance."

I didn't think so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. I'm supposed to prove a negative? Nonsense: "Argument from ignorance"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence&quot , is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

[moondust]

31. You're wasting your time

trying to deflect and obfuscate because you have no answer.



Welcome to ignore.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. "You're wasting your time" I agree. You present no evidence other than 'it stands to reason'

Colonism in purest ray serene..

[sarisataka]

24. Humans practiced slavery

For thousands of years before firearms came along...

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. You lie! Everyone knows Pharaoh kept the Israelites in line with AR15s he got from the NRA

It only stands to reason...

[moondust]

27. And no doubt

some didn't know any other reality while others may have figured it was better than the alternatives available at the time while still others may have had nowhere safe to go or no way to get there.

A slave in the U.S. south could always try to escape to a non-slave state but only if they were willing to risk a bullet in the back.

[sarisataka]

33. The same would be true for a slave of any era

In 19 century slavery risked being shot, a 1st Century slave risked being crucified

[moondust]

36. Except that...

one guy with a gun on foot or horseback could stop a 19th century slave--if it ever came to that. The threat alone of a bullet in the back from a distance would be enough to deter many people from even trying to escape or revolt.

A 1st century slave, on the other hand, could not be killed from a distance by one guy. With what? A bullwhip? Knife? Machete? Mace? They all require close physical contact, and one guy might not feel comfortable going it alone against a small group of escaped slaves.

Guns allowed the slave owner to deliver death from a distance. Slave owner could therefore reduce the size of his army of paid "enforcers" and enjoy the profits thereby realized.

[NutmegYankee]

43. Humanity has had projectile weapons for millennia.

Javalines, bow and arrow, and slings have been used for thousands of years to hit targets at a distance. In the 4th century a Hunnic Cavalry Archer could hit a target 15 times in one minute.

What caused the shift to guns was the fact that bullets were cheaper to make (no feathers or carving wood) and the bullet could pierce even the best suit of armor unlike arrows.

That said, slaves were traditionally hunted down and captured rather than shot because their master didn't want to lose their "value".

[X_Digger]

28. So the "slave-loving" states like Pennsylvania went and added their own versions.. why?

Hell, Vermont had a version of the right protected by the second amendment years BEFORE the federal constitution passed.

What a silly contention.

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

[jmg257]

8. So not a gun problem, not a race problem - it is a bad guy problem. Makes sense.

Since bad guys are such a small percentage of the population, should be fairly easy to deal with the majority of them.

[ileus]

11. Guns make people bad.

Makes as much sense as "guns kill people"

[kwassa]

12. Guns kill people all the time.

They are an easy source of death.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Guns kill people in the same way that cars drive drunk

Only with human intervention...

[kwassa]

18. Guns are highly lethal

They of course need a human operator. Guns are designed to kill. That is their function. Cars are designed to transport.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. "Cars are designed to transport." And yet people still get killed with (not by) them every day.

[kwassa]

39. So? That is an accidental byproduct, not their stated purpose.

Cars have a highly useful functional purpose fulfilled every day. Guns don't have such a positive purpose, only a negative purpose.

[ileus]

37. My firearms are designed to save lives...

[kwassa]

38. No, they are designed to kill, and nothing else.

There is no inherently peaceful use of a gun.

[ileus]

50. I bouth mine under the wrong pretense then

because I bought mine for protection, competition, or hunting purposes. The funny part is there's what 300 million guns out there that are being used peacefully.

[Orrex]

57. People buy guns under the wrong pretense all the time.

Lots of people buy them because they think that they need them for protection, for instance.

Others buy them because they imagine that the gub'mint is coming for them.

Still others buy them because they believe the ad campaigns that equate gun ownership with "manliness."


And so on.

[Waldorf]

42. Firearms are designed to send a projectile out of the barrel at a high rate of speed with

accuracy. It is up to the individual how they use such a tool. If you look at the number of firearms out there and murders committed by them, it seems 99.99% of firearms are used legally. ie: hunting, target shooting, competition shooting, self defense, etc.

[brett_jv]

45. So, 1 in 10,000 are not 'used legally'? Probably somewhere around the number of cars ...

That are operated illegally then ... for whatever reason.

Yet, they kill 1,000's every year. Why? Because there's so friggin' many of them.

Even .01% .. is STILL A LOT.

And what do you know ... our society recognizes the inherent danger posed by these devices (which have actual utility above and beyond 'tearing through flesh'), and therefore REGULATES and issues COMPETENCY-BASED LICENSES (which can be REVOKED) and forces owners to REGISTER them.

IOW, we absolutely have 'car control', and EVERYONE understands WHY.

Given this FACT ... why the hell is 'gun control' ... so friggin' out of line?

That's what I wanna know ...

[kwassa]

62. Guns are designed to kill. That is their purpose

[TheFrenchRazor]

41. oh, stop being so difficult... just kidding. a lot of people here will go to any length to excuse

criminals from being criminals.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. There are no gun factories on the South and West Sides of Chicago

Surely, the tragedy of these neighborhoods is social, economic, systemic, entrenched. But guns are part of the complex system that keeps the murder rates high, and our current gun laws contribute to them mightily. Gun manufacturers and white legal gun owners profit off the illicit pipeline that feeds the guns to the gangs.

Gun manufacturers and white legal gun owners profit off the illicit pipeline that feeds the guns to the gangs.

Gun manufacturers and white legal gun owners profit off the illicit pipeline that feeds the guns to the gangs.

Gun manufacturers and white legal gun owners profit off the illicit pipeline that feeds the guns to the gangs.

That "Chicago" is a favorite subject of the gun nut shitheads is disgusting, since they contribute to every dead black and brown body on the streets. It's also the clearest sign of a deep racism in the gun nut shithead crowd. They make money off the sales of guns to the gangs, then turn around and mock the dead. They are disgusting pigs.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Your theory of collective guilt differs from Trump's only in the choice of which collective to blame

for the actions of individuals

[kwassa]

19. You should feel guilty.

You are part of the problem, in my opinion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Bullshit. Collective guilt as a theory is poisonous nonsense no matter who promulgates it

That includes you, the poster I replied to, Donald Trump, Pamela Geller, regressive governments everywhere, and anyone else who peddles the idea.

[kwassa]

40. It is more about collective responsibility. If you feel guilt about not fulfilling that ...

that is on you.

We are our brothers' keepers, whether you see that responsibility or not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Does this apply to *any* identifiable group with members that have done wrong, or...

...just gun owners?

[kwassa]

60. Any.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Are cannabis users responsible for cartel violence? If not, why not?

[kwassa]

61. They do bear some responsibility.

Supply and demand.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. You're consistent, I'll grant you that. Would that some others here were...

[Marengo]

30. What problem, what is he responsible for?

[kwassa]

63. Not supporting gun control, making illicit guns readily available.

[beevul]

67. The only people responsible for the bad choices other people make with guns...

The only people responsible for the bad choices that are made, are the makers of those bad choices.


Collective guilt/responsibility is bullshit from stem to stern.

[kwassa]

68. Not true. If people consistently make bad choices with guns ...

Then there is not enough regulation of guns.

We impose safety constraints in many other areas of life. Why not guns?

Seatbelts in cars. Crash helmets and safety pads in a variety of different sports.

Reduce unreasonable risks.

[beevul]

69. Yes, true. I am responsible, as an individual, for no actions other than my own.

Yes, true. I am responsible as an individual for no actions other than my own, and I reject with extreme prejudice, any notions to the contrary.

If people consistently make bad choices with guns ...Then there is not enough regulation of guns.

The fact of the matter is that people frequently don't make bad choices with guns resulting in gun violence, by a factor of almost 100 to 1 versus those who do make bad choices.

That's not how I or any other person would honestly define 'consistently'.

Seatbelts in cars. Crash helmets and safety pads in a variety of different sports.

Seat belts are only required to drive a car on public roads, not to own one.

[sarisataka]

21. How exactly

Do white legal gun owners profit off the illicit pipeline that feeds the guns to the gangs?

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. You aren't supposed to ask awkward questions like that

You're supposed to shut up, feel bad and accept your share of the collective guilt...

[sarisataka]

34. I am full of strange and radical ideas

Like personal responsibility for actions.

Similarly I don't believe in group stereotypes like black people are exceptionally prone to committing crimes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. "I don't believe in group stereotypes" That's the problem: Group stereotypes are quite acceptable...

...in certain regressive circles.

Just so long, of course, as they are applied to the proper out-group(s) by members of
the proper in-group(s). These vary depending on who's 'in' and who's 'out'.

[brett_jv]

46. Have you ever considered the indisputable truth ...

That 99.99% of guns ever used in any crime ... or even a suicide or accidental injury/death ... began it's 'life' (outside the direct purview of it's original manufacturer) ... as a LEGALLY SOLD gun?

IOW, when you argue 'I must have a right to a gun, because otherwise, only the criminals will have guns' ... it is PRECISELY the FIRST HALF of that argument ... that has DIRECTLY CAUSED ... the entire statement ... to be true?

If you didn't have 'the right to a gun' ... and never had ... then next to no 'criminals' ... would have them either. Because nearly ALL guns start 'life' ... as 'legal guns', bought by people who were 'exercising their right to buy a gun'.

Think about it ... Smith and Wesson, or Remington, or Winchester, or whoever is making guns ... these are not 'the Sinaloa Cartel' or the 'Medellin Cartel' ... they're not 'underground', they're not operating 'illegally', they're not dealing in contraband ... they're on the damn NYSE, FFS.

These companies ... and the guns they produce ... they do not exist in the first place 'because of criminals' ... they exist ... because of YOU, and people who share this love of guns ... YOU have created this vicious cycle, and self-fulfilling prophecy.

And all the REST of us ... who really want NO PART of owning guns ... feel we have to have them anyways ... because YOU ... armed the criminals.

[jmg257]

48. "If you didn't have 'the right to a gun' ... and never had...". NOW you tell 'em...

About 200 yrs too late.

Might be easier to get rid of most of the criminals then most of the guns...least we know/can figure who many of them are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. I'll thank you to to keep *your* words out of *my* mouth...

...and while you're at it, take your collective guilt-tripping with you.

[Travis_0004]

51. I've been volunteering for free on the illicit pipeline that feeds guns to gangs

I didn't know there was an opportunity for profit.

[Waldorf]

44. Perhaps we should get rid of the gangs? No gangs, no guns. n/t

[jack_krass]

47. "white legal gun owners profit off the illicit pipeline"

Interesting viewpoint (you learn something new every day on DU)

Care to explain how white legal gun owners profit from this illicit pipeline? Also curious why a black, Indian, or Hispanic legal gun owner wouldn't also profit?

L

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. I believe our interlocutor found our questions too awkward to answer...

[ileus]

49. I'm starting to feel like I need to take a knee.

All this white gun owner guilt being slung around...I guess all the other races of legal gun owners are off the hook.

[Rocknrule]

56. When a black guy shoots someone, he's a thug and represents ALL black people

When a Muslim shoots someone, he's a terrorist and represents ALL Muslims
When a white guy shoots someone, he's "mentally ill" and by no means represents ALL white people

[nolabels]

59. Mental illness is thinking you can solve problems with guns

It's quite the classic example of an illness that goes un-diagnosed until it's sometimes too late

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Point out someone who espouses your first two examples and I'll argue with them myself

ALL theories of collective guilt are horseshit.

[Eleanors38]

70. Collective guilt leads to stereotyping and mass prejudice. Basic stuff.