MSN and CNN??? she is serious??? rather long article best if ya go read it for yourself…
it seem they NEVER rest from attacking… over and over…
kinda like throw crap at a wall and see what sticks???
Well. That was a rather…creative…interpretation of history.
11 Likes
@OldDude49 , I enjoyed the article, thou I do not agree with it. The same as I disagree with the use of some ways things are worded. ( I say this out of love ). And truly believe you meant no harm but, the way we might say something can be offensive to others such as “ it seems they never rest from attacking “, who are “ they”? Not trying to start a argument just looking for understanding.
4 Likes
Archived to deny XiNN (cnn) advertising revenue from such sensational newly written ‘history’.
https://archive.vn/gbJ5D
I believe "they’ was referring to the corrupt establishment media that is being caught in lie after lie after lie. Or perhaps the anti-gunners who will redefine any word or make any false claim to further their interests.
8 Likes
Another attempt to re-write our country’s history and Constitution, which are the glue that holds this society together. How long has that book been sitting in the queue for for release at the supposed “exact right time”. C’mon, CNN, let’s spur or dare I use the “INCITE” word a little more divisiveness.
7 Likes
That is how I understood the comment.
4 Likes
Freedom of speech and thought mean that you can interpret our blue skies on planet earth to be evidence that chickens have an innate desire to lay four eggs precisely every third day, or any other wild and crazy thing you want something to mean.
After watching a supreme court justice do it a while ago, and get away with it to shape national law, no one can be surprised to see others do it.
They will blame and accuse so long, and so outrageously, that they will create the division they are counting on.
6 Likes
Ok I can see that. Thank you sir
2 Likes
Would love to see this book debated by some non politically motivated scholars.
“She says that even after the Civil War ended, many Southern states banned Black citizens from owning weapons.”
And that quote from the author is all you need to destroy the book’s argument. Many of the early and even more recent anti gun laws were specifically passed to keep minorities from bearing arms.
5 Likes
The thinking by that author is completely backwards. Gun control laws were first passed to keep black people powerless. Gun control is not about guns, it is about racism and control.
6 Likes
I disagree with her but it would be a good debate
3 Likes
Welcome to the family @Mark574 glad to have you join in. I just do not see it as racism nor trying to keep Blacks from owning guns. Must missed something
2 Likes
I don’t think @Mark574 was referring to the 2A as racist if that is what you are saying? Think he was talking about the anti 2A laws.
Many people, especially on the “Left” don’t realize the rascist origins of most anti gun laws. As the article mentions, some of the first anti gun laws were passed after the civil war because slave holders were afraid their former slaves would take up arms and take revenge. Even recent laws like the background check requirements have racist underpinnings rising from the fear of minority groups arming themselves to defend against racist violence. A higher percentage of minorities cannot pass background checks so the laws disproportionately impact those groups.
Imagine if 100 years ago more of the heroic WW1 minority vets and their families in Tulsa had access to the same arms that the racist mob did? Think that story might have ended differently.
5 Likes
Why is that?
3 Likes
I am no expert but believe the short answer is due to a variety of socio economic factors due to and combined with past and persisting racism that leads to higher arrest and conviction rates for minorities both past and present. I believe having a previous felony charge (or having a similar name to someone with a previous charge) is the primary cause for failing a background check.
3 Likes
Carol Anderson argues that the Second Amendment is not about guns – it’s about anti-Blackness. She says it “was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African-Americans powerless and vulnerable.”
I submit for consideration, that her speculation comes from an anti 2A agenda looking for any specious argument to bolster the removal of guns from the law abiding citizens. Even if her suppositions were true in the 1770’s and in the 1860’s we have come a long way since the 1960’s.
This Country ain’t Utopia but it is a damn sight better than any alternative I can imagine. I thank the 2A supporters who have consistently fought to preserve our Rights.
When Illinois became the last state to be forced to allow Concealed Carry it was because a Black man challenge the State. We in Illinois will forever be in debt to Otis McDonald!
7 Likes
I assume Deputy Marshall Bass Reeves that worked for Judge Parker made all his arrest without a gun, that just one of many blacks that had firearms after civil war, same with after 1776. I’m quite positive there were restrictions put on populations, but to say that the 2nd was about anti-blackness, that a reach. The minority population (Native American) in this country had more restrictions. So I think book and assumption is incorrect.
3 Likes
Which are counter to the 2A, meaning those laws were/are unconstitutional.
4 Likes
I think you are completely missing my argument. I am saying that many of the ANTI 2A laws were racist in origin. I believe that the 2A was solely designed to protect the right of (all) the people to keep and bear arms.
3 Likes
Concur
1 Like