Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Sharpton "stunned" by his listeners' support of McDonald ruling.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:47 PM
Original message
Al Sharpton "stunned" by his listeners' support of McDonald ruling.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2010/06/al-sharpton-...


"I would say 90% of the calls I received yesterday were in support of the Supreme Court and people say they want to bear guns. Theyre tired of the violence and its very very interesting. I have had a few on both sides today, but yesterday was overwhelming, it was stunning to me."

It is not stunning to us Al.

Also check out Courtland Milloy's excellent analysis of Clarence "X" Thomas' opinion.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"This was no muttering from an Uncle Tom, as many black people have accused him of being. His advocacy for black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X. He even cites the slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner -- implying that white America has long wanted to take guns away from black people out of fear that they would seek revenge for centuries of racial oppression."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 01:51 PM by jobycom
Didn't realize what forum this was in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Jesus fucking christ. I support the supreme court on this decision but that opinion is insane
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 01:58 PM by no limit
this has nothing to do with race, this has nothing to do with slavery, this has nothing to do with wanting to take guns away from black people. Get a fucking grip. This reminds me of Tea Party idiots constant talk of revolution and how it was about high taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. While I agree with your evaluation...
the Revolution was chiefly about paying taxes to the Crown and having no say about it.

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

"No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (one of the types of laws that affects the majority of individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional. In recent times, it has been used by several other groups in several different countries over similar disputes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No taxation without representation is not the same as a tax rate you don't like
that's the point I was making. These idiots have representation, they are just mad they lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Going further with that insane aspect...
If this racist assumption was at the heart of previous gun policies, then why would these same racists not want to put more guns out there, given how unfortunately effective it has been in decimating inner city black families exposed to gang violence and drive by shootings?

BTW, I don't know how having a personal gun for self-protection would really do very much in that overwhelmingly violent climate, but some obviously think that it will... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. the person with the gun...
Would not have a great effect. It just gives an individual living in that environment one more option. Look at Ms. Parker in the original Heller complaint. She lives in a tough neighborhood and has been threatened by drug dealers on her corner.

Imagine you woke up and your entire house was on fire. Would your fire extinguisher be effective? No, but i would still want one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
40. Owning or legally carrying a firearm does not make you a police officer ...
so the fact that citizens can own or, in some states, "pack heat" may not make a considerable difference in the turf wars between drug gangs.

I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry. I also know where the drugs are sold in my small town. (The police also know the same info.) I have no obligation to journey to these areas and play cop and end up dead or in serious trouble. Homie don't play dat!

My firearms are for those times when the life or health of my family or myself are in serious danger. I don't go looking for trouble. My firearms won't stop the drug gangs or the drive by shootings but possibly they might allow me to survive an attack by an individual who intends harm.

Personally, I feel that the "War on Drugs" should be recognized as the total failure that it is. Many illegal drugs should be legalized as it obvious that prohibition NEVER works.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I agree on the War on Drugs...
I'm just thinking of the person for whom this decision is intended... i.e., among others, the single mother with kids stuck in the worst part of a housing community that is surrounded by gangs and gang violence. Having a gun won't prevent the bullets coming through her walls from what may be happening immediately outside. Having all her neighbors armed won't help as well. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:07 PM
Original message
Banning guns doesn't help her either.
Criminals don't buy guns legally. Hence any ban in Chicago on legal gun ownership only by its very nature only affects the law abiding.

With no gun ban at least he/she has the OPTION (but not requirement) to purchase a firearm for self defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. and you might think differently if you lived in a place like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. If gun bans actually worked, I might agree ...
Unfortunately, they have proven to be ineffective.

I don't seriously believe that you feel that Chicago has proven to be an outstanding example of how banning items such as handguns works. Mayor Daley has done everything he could and will continue to make handguns difficult to obtain and yet despite all his efforts, Chicago has a major problem with firearm violence.

I agree that allowing the citizens of Chicago to own handguns for self defense will not resolve the problem of criminal and organized drug gangs to commit violence. It may allow some citizens to successfully defend themselves against serious attacks such as home invasions or intimidation by organized drug gangs. This in itself is worthwhile.

But the real solution is far more complex. Poverty and the lack of economic opportunity and education compose a large part of the problem. Our war on drugs is a total failure as prohibition never works but in fact empowers criminal elements to prosper and gain power.

Solving the root problems is very complex and expensive. For political reasons, the people we elect are reluctant to spend the necessary money and effort to address the root problems. It's far easier to pass "feel good" laws which make our elected politicians to appear that they are concerned and involved. Such tactics work in the short time to gain voter confidence but fail over the long run. Such laws are words on paper that fail to accomplish anything, but they are inexpensive and gain reelection for those who support them. To all to many of those we elect, reelection is the only goal. You win by appealing to your base and if your base believes that firearms are the problem and you push for laws that restrict or ban firearms you get reelected.

The real solution might involve admitting the war on drugs has failed and legalizing may current illegal drugs. It might also involve moving our education system into the current century and interesting students into actually enjoying learning and education through the use of computers and computer programs that impart lesson far better than an unqualified teacher and a blackboard. It will require more police on the streets and the use of proactive policies to combat crime. It might require the reestablishment of industry in our country and providing well paying jobs in our nation rather than outsourcing factories to other nations. Not every student will go to college, yet we have to provide a chance for the opportunity for all of our citizens to achieve a standard of good living or we will be faced with increasing numbers of those who will resort to crime as a solution to poverty.

The solutions are expensive but ignoring the base roots of the problems we face and instead passing "feel good" laws will do little or nothing to change our problems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
69. But it may be the difference when one of those thugs...
kicks the door in to rape and/or rob the residents.

Works very well, quite often, in many places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #40
76. ALL drugs should be legal.
If you can tell someone that they may not put something in their body, you own that body. If they own that body, the person using that body is a slave. Slavery is abhorrent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
81. The question here is not social policy, it is self-defense...
There is overwhelming evidence that the foundation of "modern" gun control law was laid by the Southern states, and that the attitude of preventing "Negroes with guns" has persisted even into modern times.

"...why would these same racists not want to put more guns out there, given how unfortunately effective it has been in decimating inner city black families exposed to gang violence and drive by shootings?"

_________

By the latter part of the 20th Century, many recognized that blacks were still being oppressed by gun laws which would deny the RKBA. One of the best summaries of the history of racist gun-control laws can be found in www.georgicarry.org . (Search locally under Heller brief.) You can imagine the complexion of the members of this organization. This change in attitude was NOT an attempt solely to effect social policy, but to strengthen the ability of blacks to defend themselves. Clearly, it does no one any good to be legally barred from having a firearm while crims and thugs can obtain them at will.


http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/colonial/jb_colonial_...

Stono's Rebellion
September 9, 1739
Early on the morning of Sunday, September 9, 1739, 20 black slaves met in secret near the Stono River in South Carolina to plan their escape to freedom. Minutes later, they burst into Hutcheson's store at Stono's bridge, killed the two storekeepers, and stole the guns and powder inside.

__________

Since before the Revolution, blacks, like the rest of society, know the value of self-defense and the tools by which it can be achieved.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. +1 Hey, the gun lobby will go to any length to put a gun in everybody's pants.

This take on the ruling is cracking me up.

More than a few here have been saying: "Give everyone a gun and solve the crime problem in poor neighborhoods."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travis Coates Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. Then you should be able to cite a few examples of Duers who have said that
We'll wait
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
55. I know you enjoyed posting this, but it's sheer bullshit ...
If someone actually said anything like that, they were probably trolling.

Having a firearm in your home or even having a concealed carry permit does not make you a cop. I have firearms and a concealed carry permit and I don't put on my Batman outfit and play vigilante at night. I don't go looking for trouble nor would I expect other gun owners or those with carry permits to do so.

Firearms are not for everybody. Some people have violent felony records and have proved to be irresponsible members of our society. Some people suffer from severe anger management problems or seriously abuse alcohol or drugs. Some people suffer from serious mental problems. Some live in volatile relationships with a significant other. Some have seriously considered committing suicide. Firearms are not for such people.

Firearms are also not for those people who are unwilling to learn firearm safety or for those who are unwilling to take measures to prevent children from gaining access to their weapons.

But as I said, it's fun posting here on DU. I can understand why many here oppose firearm ownership and since this is basically a progressive and liberal forum, opposition to firearm ownership is popular.

Still you have to realize that many members here own firearms and are responsible owners. Just as you, we want to see the violent crime problem in our country reduced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
70. You are either misinformed...
deluded or a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. gun control has nothing to do with race???
absolutely does. The majority argument, in part, is that the right to bear arms, like the freedom of speech and the right to assemble are "fundamental" to preserving liberty.

Thomas gave a history of gun control, showing how it began as a move to disarm blacks, and later used to harass, torture, and kill blacks to drive the point home.

Personally, I think the reason so many so-called liberals support gun control is because it provides a politically correct outlet for latent racism. Ban "Saturday Night Specials?" Did you know they used to be called "Niggertown Saturday Night Specials" until people figured that would hurt their cause.

When I hear Hillary or Schumer say "I respect the rights of hunters and sportsmen," I hear "I respect the rights of white gun owners."

The tea party provides a good cover. Chris Matthews can frame the issue as a fear of "angry white men," but I believe if you dug deep enough, you would uncover a very old fear of "A black man with a gun."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. wow....
I recognize the JIM CROW era influence on gun rights, but your current denunciation of, well everyone it seems.... Don't you think for a moment you might be taking it just a bit far? I fear a "crazy" with a gun and God knows no race, ethnicity or religion has a monopoly on "crazy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. If he is crazy...
he will be prevented from buying a gun due to the mental health background check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Uh no... if he is "diagnosed crazy" then maybe....
And of course given our universal access to health, including mental health care, we can assure the mentally ill are diagnosed and under treatment, right? :sarcasm:

BTW, "crazy" in this loose usage also incorporates the more anti-social among the personality disorders--the sociopaths, extreme narcissists, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Check out post 22
It shows just some of the ways that "gun control" still aims to keep blacks--at least blacks who aren't felons--from keeping arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #49
74. "gun lovers are a nutty bunch no matter what ethnic group"
How so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
84. Wait, what, now you're calling people who are for gun control racists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Gun control has everything to do about race.
The 14th amendment had everything to do about race. It was needed because States couldn't be trusted to respect the rights of their citizens universally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. So states were banning guns for everyone in the state to put black people down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. No. Because they were afraid of black people with guns....
A gross simplification, but after a while you need to call a duck, a duck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. No, states were forbidding blacks specifically from having weapons,
or giving police chiefs and sheriffs "discretion" which was only used against black people.

Look up and read some of the historical briefs in this case. The history is not unclear in the slightest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. So Chicago was telling black people they could own handguns and telling white people they could?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. gun control is a lot older than the Chicago gun ban.
The ramifications of this decision go far beyond the ban of a type of weapons in one city.

That was the direct complaint but the case will be used as precedent for any future infringement by the states.

Historically gun control has been deeply rooted in racism and classism not just Blacks but many minorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. No. But the knew restrictions undoubtedly will, just like DC nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. You realize that Chicago is not a state, right?
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 02:42 PM by TPaine7
Racism isn't the only way to be wrong. Forbidding ANYONE to exercise their constitutional rights is wrong.

I answered the question you asked. You ignored that fact and changed the subject. Why do you use such tactics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. I asked you to name a state that was doing that you said they were doing
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 02:58 PM by no limit
Yes, amazingly enough I am aware Chicago is not a state (misspeak) but you didn't answer my question. Chicago was not doing this and I'd love for you to name a state or even a city that was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
53. Read your own post.
20.So states were banning guns for everyone in the state to put black people down?

I answered that question.

As I said, read the briefs. I don't have time to find and link to them, but if someone else doesn't, you can probably find the link on the Wikipedia page for the SC case.

As for states that kept blacks from carrying or owning weapons, try Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, ... basically any southern state. I would be surprised if there were any exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. So your answer to my question is examples from the civil rights era?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Partially
Last I checked, Alabama still had discretionary concealed carry. I lived there for many years. I didn't even bother to apply to the local discretion for CCW. I daresay I actually know the attitudes of people there better than you most.

The "civil rights era" isn't over.

"Discretion" is practiced in many areas still. You can't prove that you didn't get your license because you are black (or you donated to the sheriff's opponent, or he resented you dating his daughter, or he doesn't like people with British accents, or his wife left him...). Who do you think is more likely to meet the sheriff's discretion, the guy whose executive father donated to his campaign and plays golf with him weekly of the black mechanic with a perfect criminal record who lives in LA? Who do you suppose needs it more?

And it doesn't even matter if the executive and his privileged son are black, too. Classicism is unconstitutional just like racism. The Fourteenth Amendment calls for equal protection of the laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. The problem I have is most of the people fighting for these tight laws had good intentions
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 03:46 PM by no limit
this tries to pain them as racist when in fact many of these people were trying to help people in poor neighborhoods. No doubt I disagree with them, but I would never try to imply in any shape or form that they are racist. Which is exactly what that editorial tried to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. I will concede that *some* of the people fighting for these tight laws had good intentions
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 04:22 PM by TPaine7
And if you are talking about the foot soldiers, like many of the people who post on this board for gun control, I will even concede that most of them have good intentions.

Daley, Bloomberg, Nagin, Fenty and the like are a different story. Especially Daley.

Here is something I wrote before the ruling in Heller about the type of system that the leaders of gun control fought for, the type that the Brady Campaign supported in court:

Sensible Gun Control

consider a city with reasonable, common sense gun laws.{49} The District of Columbia's laws earn high grades from the Brady Campaign, and they approach {Obamas} total urban gun bans.

It is a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that can actually shoot bullets. Guns are ok, as long as they are useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they must always be unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they must always be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it is a crime. The excuse that you are trying to protect your familyor repel a rapist or avoid deathwill not do.

When confronted with this reality, the District tried to argue that they don't really mean it. They tried to convince the Supreme Court in Heller that there is an exception for self-defense.

Such an exception is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement, just as it is in many of the District‟s other laws.{50}


The problem is that they met and defeated that very defense in McIntosh v. Washington.{51} It is illegal to load a gun in your home for self-defense. Period. Defending your business with a functional gun is legal.

These are the laws regarding long gunsrifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns is even worse. You cannot possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you have a registered handgun, you need a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits are impossible to get.{52} And of course your registered handgun must remain useless at all times. (You may load guns kept at your place of business.)


These reasonable, common sense" lawscarefully designed to prevent gun crimes, self-inflicted wounds, and armed toddlerscaused Parker (the lead litigant in the original DC case, the precursor to Heller) distress. A community activist, her outspoken opposition to drugs earned the enmity of a local dealer, who threatened to kill her.

She should depend on the police, says the common wisdom. They are professionals, pledged to serve and protect. Less known is the fact that they have no obligation to do either, as established in court:

Illustrative of this failure is the case of Warren v.District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981.) In the late winter of 1975, three women (Warren, Taliaferro and Douglas, plus Douglas's four-year-old daughter) were asleep in a rooming house on Lamont Street, NW in the District. In the early morning hours, two burglars entered the property and raped Douglas. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams and called the MPD at 6:23 a.m. to report a burglary in progress. They were assured police were on the way. At 6:26 a.m., three cruisers were dispatched to the rooming house on a priority 2 call. One officer knocked on the door while other officers remained in their cruisers. Receiving no response at the door, the officers left. Warren and Taliaferro watched in horror from the roof of their building before crawling back into their room, where they continued to hear Douglas‟ screams. They called the MPD again at 6:42 a.m. and asked for immediate assistance. Again, they were told assistance was on the way. The dispatcher never dispatched additional police, unbeknownst to the two who yelled reassurance to Douglas and were, as a result, discovered by the burglars. All three women were then abducted at knifepoint and held prisoner for 14 additional hours, while being beaten, robbed, raped and directed to perform sex acts on each other.

All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed.{53}


To summarize, the District's position is that you must pay taxes for police who have no duty to protect you.{54} You may possess long guns, but they must always be kept in a useless condition, even when you are under attack. To meet Hellers legal challenge, the District now maintains that there is a self-defense exceptiona position they have previously defeated in court. Under this newly adopted position, a person under immediate attack is allowed to assemble or unlock their weapon and load it. D.C. desires that the Supreme Court should not address this reasonable law, still on the books, nor the legal precedent set by the District‟s victory, but should take the District at its word on its future enforcement.

So let's take them at their word (for the sake of discussion only).

A law-abiding woman lives alone. She keeps a long gun as allowed in the District. At 2:00 AM, a drug dealer breaks into her house and the race starts. She must awaken from a dead sleep, remove the lock (or assemble the gun!), retrieve the ammunition, load the gun, and bring it into position in time to protect herself.

Absent Special Forces training, this is a very tall order.


Source: To see the footnotes and follow the links go to www.obamaonsecond.com . Search for Sensible Gun Control to find the section.

The dishonest misrepresentation of their legal position, the callous disregard for Parker's safety or rights, and the silly arguments I outlined earlier in the linked letter--people would shoot themselves if they were allowed guns, for example--are not the tactics of honest people acting in good faith.

I will not concede that these people have good intentions or are acting in good faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I think the case you wrote about is outrageous but I don't see anything racial about it.
No, government has no right to tell you what you can do with a gun in your home (outside of shooting it). But that law applied to everyone as far as I know. Rich, poor, black, white, male, female, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. That post was about good faith, not race. I've covered race elsewhere. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
82. You might be interested in what constitutes a duck..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. No they just made sure only non-blacks would have access to them.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 03:19 PM by Statistical
by a variety of methods.

Thus unequal protection under the law. The infringement of right to keep and bear arms was a consideration for the necessity of the 14th amendment. Not the only one but certainly a consideration.

Rights are universal. States shouldn't have the ability to discriminate when it comes to exercising rights.

While the case was about RKBA in this instance the larger issue is incorporation. Eventually this case will be used as precedent for civil rights violations by the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. Can you give me some examples of this happening recently?
I'm not aware of any but that doesnt mean they didnt exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Recently & directly no.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 03:05 PM by Statistical
Directly no however indirectly firearm ownership is discouraged by policies based on class still today.

Some of us see these policies as violation of equal protection under the law. Policies such as:
* bans on low cost firearms
* burdensome registration schemes
* excessive costs/fees for licensing
* "may issue" licensing = "may infringe".
* requiring licensing/registration in person during working hours (hard to do when working hourly wage w/ no paid time off).

More importantly the decision opens the door for lawsuits against current infringement but also provides precedent against future infringement.

Ignoring the history/reason for gun control (which is more about control than about guns) is foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. There are many things you can fall back on to the civil rights area for many issues
and nobody is saying you need to ignore them.

I just dont' buy that cities and states today are banning guns to keep the black man down. I would bet you money that in areas where the registrations are expensive they have plenty of poor white people too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. I agree. Open classism is more accepted today than open racism.
However given the unequal distribution of wealth and high percentage of minorities living in poverty classist policies has added bonus of also being racist policy makers.

Gun control is all about control. Minorities are more represented in politics today thus they are less of a target for overt discrimination. The poor, the weak, the disadvantaged, the underpresented well they are an easy target.

Nobody said gun control is LIMITED to racism but rather than its history if full of examples of racism and classism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Surf Fishing Guru Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #41
67. Politicians are more discreet now . . .
Posted by no limit

"Can you give me some examples of this happening recently?"


How about we examine the two most infamous handgun bans in the nation?

Politicians are more discreet now; they know they can not write a law today (of the type the 14th Amendment was enacted to restrain) that says, "it shall not be lawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of color in this State, to own firearms, . . ." but they can be geographically specific (wink-wink).

After decades of 2-1 advantage, whites in Washington DC watched the demographics flip in the late 60's and by 1970 blacks outnumbered whites 537,512 to 209,272. With the city in economic ruin from the '68 riots and a rocketing crime wave the nervous DC elites in power enacted the ban in the early '70's.

Same goes for Chicago. Reeling from the Democratic National Convention unrest and the race riots, worried about the surging Black Panthers and Nation of Islam, the State Legislature actually enacted a right to arms provision in 1970 in the Illinois constitution where there was none before . . . Problem was, it was a Trojan Horse because it contained a significant caveat that served to facilitate the gun ban and other draconian gun laws.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Art. I, 22


A right conditioned is a right that can be denied at will by authorities.

Well, now the 2nd Amendment is the guiding principle and those elites are again getting nervous because the common citizen has regained rights stolen from them . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #41
75. Chicago and warrantless searches.
The Clinton administration in 1994 introduced a new policy to permit police without warrants to raid and search apartments in gang-ridden public housing but said the plan will not violate the constitutional rights of tenants. A Federal judge disagreed.

Chicago Housing Authority conducted warrant-less searches for guns and there was a bitter court battle where the ACLU argued people do not give up their Constitutional rights just because they move into public housing. What a novel idea, having the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments apply in the projects!

You may recall a speech where an outraged President Clinton upset at a Federal judge ruling in favor of the residents called on the Attorney General, Janet Reno to try and find a way around this impediment to government action.

And here all along folks were under the delusion that the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to impede the government!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n21_v10 /...

Are these example recent enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
65. Funny you should ask that
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 05:01 PM by one-eyed fat man
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did prevent states from explicitly using race in gun control laws. So as Jim Crow intensified in the South, several states enacted handgun licensing or registration laws. In 1941, a white man was arrested for violating a Florida law against carrying a concealed weapon for having a pistol in the glove compartment of his car. He appealed his conviction; it was overturned and one Florida Supreme Court judge frankly explained the racist purpose:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps.... (T)he Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population.... (I)t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute.... (T)here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested. Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941).


Let me restate the salient parts, "The was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro... and there has never been any effort... to enforce this as to white people." If that is not direct and plain enough for you, I don't know what would be.

Read more....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. Was that upheld by a higher court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Absolutely
That's what the 'Supreme' means in Florida Supreme Court. It doesn't get any higher.

Secondly, let me recap the events. A white guy gets busted with a gun in his glove box. There is a trial and he is convicted. He appeals his conviction. It goes all the way to the highest court in the State and they throw out the conviction.

The Judge explains the decision to let the guy off by saying, "I know about this law. It was meant to keep guns away from black people and it was never intended to be used against white people."

Now, up-thread, you asked, with some disbelief, it seems:

So states were banning guns for everyone in the state to put black people down?

And yes, that is exactly the case. In Florida in 1893 the state passed a concealed weapons law, but only enforced it against blacks. And if you go back and reread the Judge's words how can you see it any other way than that, since nearly 50 years later it was still that way?

North Carolina was sneakier. The sheriff had absolute power to grant or deny a license. They didn't say 'white folks only' but you had to apply in person. The sheriff could take one look and say, "No," and he didn't owe you an explanation.

Tennessee had a law that a person could only carry an "Army or Navy Pattern revolver". Those were expensive guns, poor black farmers couldn't afford them. But that was exactly the point, many of the white men had served in the Confederate Army. If you recall, under the terms of surrender, Grant let the Confederate officers keep their sidearms.

That's part of the history that was finally settled yesterday.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
85. Then tell me why white Southern Republicans are the most vociferous in favor of gun rights. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Because in the 1990's gun control for once was pointed at them
And they fought back against it, hard. 1994 comes to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. Interesting
First, in the interest of full disclosure: I'm not really a big fan of guns. I think the Supreme Court made a mistake not allowing communities suffering from excessive gun violence to do what they need.

OK, fine, I'm sure we can argue that to death.

Still, I'm intrigued by the linked article. I read it entirely. I'm reminded that IIRC Condoleeza Rice mentioned something about her father having a gun to protect his family from marauding racists.

Like I said, I think communities should be allowed to do what they need but I can see why some would need to arm themselves.

It is also interesting that conservatives, not progressives, seem to be calling for blacks to defend themselves. If Malcom X were alive today would he recognize the dividing lines on this particular issue?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure inner city violence hurts Rev Sharpton deeply and he feels gun control might best slow that down but as far as dealing with violent racists and such the lines seem flipped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. If the decision were up to Condi's "community"...
Her father would have been unarmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. The OP seems to suggest just the opposite
And to be perfectly honest I've never seen a conservative say, "We want gun rights...except for blacks."

I've had someone, just last night, fling the "racist!" label at me and it wasn't nice. I feel it was for no other reason than he had no better argument to make. Truth be told it has made me seriously reconsider how and when that label gets thrown around.

BTW - what does "RKBA" mean? I keep seeing it in this thread and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I know you didn't ask me but... RKBA = the Right to Keep and Bear Arms n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Ah! TY
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. But what you will hear people say is.....
We need to ban guns in the "inner city"

We need to ban guns from public housing

And in DC-we need to make guns available to people who...can afford the $300 surcharge, have a car, have a salaried job where they can take off several days and either bury the time or charge it to vacation. (If you have an hourly job, you will lose even more money). Exactly whom do you think these restrictions are targeted at?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. Except I'm a progressive and so is Rev Sharpton
And we're the ones who think inner city violence necessitates a gun ban.

Either Condi Rice is a closet progressive or your statement against her is misplaced.

And I don't make my statement to oppress people in the inner city as I'm sure Rev Sharpton doesn't either. Rev Sharpton is acting in good faith about what he believes is best.

Now, I suppose a $300 surcharge would be akin to a poll tax if it were to be admitted that the "RKBA" (yay! I learned something new!) was admitted to be an essential right like voting. But IIRC mayor Daley in Chicago is proposing doing just that to get around this new ruling.

Does that make mayor Daley a conservative? Do conservatives endorse a $300 surcharge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. "nd I don't make my statement to oppress people in the inner city"
I am sure you don't however there are unintended consequences.

No gun ban in this country has ever worked. The DC gun ban, Chicago gun ban, the assault weapons bans were all complete failures.

Why?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. "
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria).

It goes beyond just gun bans though. Low cost firearms have been banned. Someone who is poor and not really a gun enthusiast do you think they need something cheap ($150) and functional or some top of the line collectors item ($1000). The ban on low cost firearms does it more impact the poor or the rich?

Excessive and burdensome registration & permits. Once again does it hurt the pooor, the disadvantaged, the minorities or does it hurt the rich, powerful and connected.

Same thing with high fees & costs. Same thing with "may issue" licensing. Movie star in CA can get a concealed weapons permit. A single mother working at Walmart who wants a weapon for protection from her abusive and drugged up ex-husban... not a chance in hell.


Gun control has its roots in classism and racism. Daley has armed security guards (paid for by taxpayer dollars). No guns for the poor but you think he is going to give up guns for the rich & powerful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
57. I think we've all heard the...
..."When they outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" argument before.

I'd like to be able to say modern law enforcement should be able to control the flow of guns...

...but I smoke pot and we see how that's working out for them.

Sorry, its the pacifist progressive in me. I don't like violence and I equate guns with violence.

I do have to admit your domestic violence argument is strong. My BF (you'd like him, he's very pro-gun) said Biden wrote a federal law against domestic violence but Sarah Palin inspired women to learn how to shoot.

I wish to heaven he would have found a different example besides Palin but there you have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Some cities have cut down on violence and illegal gun usage without violating the 2nd amendment.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 03:48 PM by Statistical
Project Exile comes to mind. I'll see if I can find a link.

Richmond, VA substantially reduced murder rate, and violent crime rate simply by enforcing existing but rarely enforced federal gun laws.

A felon caught with a gun got 5 years, in out of state federal prison. The local prosecutor had no control over it, no plea bagins, no reduced sentences. They backed it up with an advertising campaign. Get caught with a gun get 5 years EXILED period. No exceptions.

Targeting criminals is hard but effective. Targeting law abiding is easy but nearly useless. 9 times of out 10 the governments take the easy route to "do something".

Palin is just preaching to her base. Another group advocating firearms for an at risk community is Pink Pistols ('Armed Gays don't get bashed').
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity556 Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #57
78. I abhor violence...
But rather than take the view of equating guns with violence, I equate them with a way to immediately and decisively STOP violence. I haven't been in so much as a fist fight since I was in junior high. I'm fairly decent at talking my way out of situations that may become violent, but there are some folks out there who LOOOOVE violence. Folks who have no interest in allowing someone to talk their way out of something bad. So I carry a gun. Pepper spray as well-you should have something in between harsh words and things that go bang.

I also associate guns with fun-I've been shooting since I was 5. When I was a kid, my folks would take us shooting whenever we wanted to go. But the rule was, you touch the gun, you clean the gun. Took the mystery and magic out of guns in a hurry. And I've gotten to shoot some very fun things-being friendly with an 07/03 FFL or 10 tend to allow you the chance to shoot some guns that most people only see on TV (my favorites were the MP5K, full auto Glocks, the M79 grenade launcher (orange chalk grenades) and an M134 minigun).

And since I own guns, my wife also knows how to shoot (her favorite was a friend's .50 with a suppressor), what the laws are for self defense, how to safely handle a firearm, and, most importantly, she knows that because she carries a gun, it means she has to be prepared to take MORE shit rather than none at all. She even has her very own AR15-and she loves her Evil Purple (yep, purple) Rifle.

Unicorn, if your boyfriend shoots, try it some time. Seriously-you might be surprised at how much fun poking holes in paper from far away can be. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. I am sure you and he...
are acting in good faith. Condi supports the right to bear arms because she saw how important it was to the safety of her family. I have no problems with that.

Daly will undoubtedly go for high costs...and that will be the basis of the next suit.

I recommend you get away from the "progressive" and "Conservative" categories when it comes to guns. I consider myself extremely liberal and have participated in more actions and volunteered more time to "progressive" causes than most, I think. I am pro-choice, pro-Obamacare, Pro sticking it to BP. I am also very pro-gun, because I value ALL the bill of rights...and after listening to Bush argue against the 1st amendment for 8 years, it feels wrong to use those same arguments to argue against 2A.

The other thing you need to realize about gun politics is that the higher in power you get, the less truly "pro 2A" you tend to be. There have not been a lot of republican presidents championing gun rights. Bush's team sat out the Heller decision. Bush said he would sign an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban. At that level it becomes more about "control"

Thanks for joining the debate!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #32
79. Do you believe the handgun ban in Chicago was successful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
45. In her community...
The decisions would have been made by the whites. Hence, no guns.

You might want to do a youtube search for "No Guns for Negroes" for a good video on the topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. It is interesting how things have changed.
Too many conservatives are racists. However, Malcolm X would have been with them on this point. So, incidentally, would have been MLK, who kept his own gun for protection.

To my mind, it is a human right for a person to have the means of self-defense. Communities should not decide that any more than communities should decide religious matters or political beliefs or whether or not to torture criminal suspects. I know we disagree on this, but if you take a hard look at what communities have done, I think it will become apparent why the Second Amendment should be obeyed by communities just like the 1st and the 4th.

See what the community of Washington DC had as its policies--the policies that started this whole thing going: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Honestly, can you say with a straight face that those are sane and reasonable community standards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
56. Cities have a CRIME problem!
New York and Chicago were crime-infested cesspools in 1870, 1970 and it's a dollar to a donut bet they still will be in 2070. New York's corrupt Democratic machine, Tammany Hall, championed the city's first ban on handguns with the Sullivan Act in 1911 so the Irish thugs wouldn't have as much competition from the Italian thugs. Nothing has changed in the 100 years except the city's criminals have more diversity.

The key ingredient to having a crime infested cesspool is criminals. New York, Chicago, Baltimore, DC, LA etc have more than their share and breed more everyday. The only thing this decision will change is a small percentage of law-abiding citizens will avail themselves of the right to own a gun for self-defense. It just might do a tiny number of them some good. The loosening of concealed carry laws in the past twenty years has neither caused the massive blood-bath the strident fear-mongers had predicted nor can the small reduction in crime during this same period be attributed solely to the same change in gun laws.

FACT!The thugs will always have guns; this decision won't change their numbers or the ease with which criminals disregard any law they choose. The only thing that will happen is more bloviating politicians will spend more time pandering to idiots seeking simplistic solutions to complex problems and throwing tax money down rat-holes (legal firms owned by friends and relatives) futilely fighting lawsuits against their next unconstitutional set of ordinances. It is easier to ignore the consequences of the "catch and release" justice systems.

Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Of the offenders with prior felony records, the study found that at the time of the new crime 18 percent were on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.

The bureau also reported 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony.

In another finding, the bureau said youths under age 21 commit 30 percent of all homicides.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609 /...

It is equally easy to dismiss the very real effects of a thug culture which glorifies criminality and violence while demeaning work and educational achievement. It is easier to blame crime on "poverty" ignoring generations of working poor who made an honest living. For those claiming criminality is all about income or educational disparity it is telling that college-educated millionaire athletes find it useful to adopt the "gangsta persona" when out clubbing in NYC. Or that to succeed as a "hip-hop artist" some have gone so far as to fake a criminal past. It is instructive to see how some have seen their careers wither as a result.

http://www.inoutstar.com/news/Akon-s-Thug-Persona-and-C...

For all the "sturm und drang" from those whose blind hatred of guns this decision comes as the complete end of civilization, I am confident there will be a significantly insignificant increase in the number of victims who manage to turn the tables on their attackers. The bitter truth is that if you are the one who is victimized by a crime, statistics don't matter. If you are defenseless, you are completely at the mercy of the criminal. If you resist, even with a gun, you have no certainty you will win. One thing is clear, each person ought to have the right to decide for themselves if, when and how they are going to respond to an attacker.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. That is funny and wonderful
If Al Sharpton's listeners are 90% for the RKBA, who's left to fight against the Second Amendment?

I like the anecdote about the old lady--"saved, sanctified and filled with the Holy Ghost, but if they come in my house I'll drop them where they stand." I know there are people who would prefer she (an ~ 80 yo woman) call the police and hope, or engage them in hand-to-hand combat. Al Sharpton is probably among them. I would have liked to have seen his face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Not many people.


Support has likely risen since then. There is more discussion today about the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Civil rights advocates support rights even when they aren't directly benefited from them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Read this and tell me who's brainwashed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Instead of calling people crazy why not put forth an argument?
I have no problem saying I believe the extremity of inner city violence should allow law enforcement authorities to take guns of the street and stop the sales of new guns.

I can say that and still be respectful to those I disagree with.

If all you have are insults then you don't see the people you disagree with as people. Treating each other as less than human is where our worse problems start and then it spins out of control until everyone is--ironically--reaching for their guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
44. Since you seem to be genuinely interested in supporting your posistion...
how do you reconcile a ban with the fact that there is a RIGHT to keep and bear arms?

Not a wish, not a desire, not a permission, a right. A right that pre-exists the Constitution.


If one accepts that the 2nd amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) then banning firearms for the purpose of violence control would be analgous to banning jury trials to reduce crime?

Violating the 4th and 5th amendments WOULD reduce crime, no doubt about that. If Police could beat a confession out of someone, deny them legal counsel, and "try" them before a judge not a jury conviction rates would be much higher.

Of course we accept that the 4th and 5th amendments protect fundamental rights thus it is verboten to consider such options to reduce crime.

So why/how can the 2nd amendment be ignored when it is convenient. If the govt can ignore the second what makes you so certain it won't "ignore" the 1st, 4th, or 5th in the future?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. "gunnuts"?
If you support fundamental civil rights, you're a nut?

Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. Roughly 3 out of 4 Americans believe 2nd amendment protects an individual right.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 02:22 PM by Statistical


Only 29% support banning handguns (one would imagine support for banning all guns would be even less).



Even if you look among non-gun owners belief in an individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms is about 2/3rd majority.



I have never seen it broken down by race but one has to imagine Al Sharpton viewpoint is in the very small (and shrinking) minority.

I hope this was a wakeup call for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. The 29% who still support banning handguns
Should be held for crimes against the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Well I don't favor thought crime.
I will give them the benefit of the doubt of advocating for repealing the 2nd and genuinely believing there is no un-enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Personally I believe even without the 2nd the right still exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
63. I personally believe the Federal government can't ban ANYTHING under the 10th Amendment
When the government banned certain drugs in the early 1900's, many believed it would not hold up, since the 10th clearly states (no pun intended) anything not in the Constitution is a state's issue, not a federal one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
72. What an idiot. Does he ever listen to the people he claims to champion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
73. Sharpton was once righteously punked by a reporter.

When asked what he thought would result if a large number of states allowed their citizens to carry concealed pistols, Sharpton responded with the predictable "blood in the streets" meme -- clearly unaware that the hypothetical was in fact a current reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
77. Politicians who don't listen...
generally get surprised by things like this. Of course, Sharpton doesn't have to run for re-election so he's kind of immune to public sentiment. I'm kind of wondering if he'll adjust his position to remain relevant to his followers. You only get to be King as long as someone wants you to be.

I can't say I really have much use for Sharpton. He's kind of a media product and not much else as far as I can tell. I might think differently if I were black but I kind of doubt it. I was always more of a Malcom X kind of guy anyway. I've always wondered what X's political thinking would have looked like if he had lived long enough to have the time to reflect and grow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. Sharpton is a blowhard of the same stripe as...
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-04-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #80
83.  Don't forget Jessie Jackson! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. Indeed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #80
88. +1 I don't have time for media whores. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC