Liberty control has its roots in racism. Why isn’t advocating for it considered to be racist?
We find ourselves at a very interesting conflux of issues these days. On the one hand, Democrats in Virginia are fighting off charges of racism while the rest of the nation’s Socialist-Left is openly talking about subjects such as ‘white privilege’ and judging people based on skin color instead of the content of their character as in the Covington Catholic high school case.
Contrast this with their incessant efforts in tearing down basic human rights, in particular the right of self-defense. Meanwhile, we have the 1-year mark of the Parkland mass murder, the fuse that set off the Left’s crusade against Liberty. The Left’s efforts in controlling the right of self-defense have their roots in racism, not to mention that their crusade against this basic human Liberty adversely impact the minority community, so shouldn’t they be condemned for their racism in this regard?
Shouldn’t the Left have to answer for this?
The issue of Liberty [gun] control is one of the Left empowering themselves at the expense of the innocent. What began as a way of depriving certain people of their civil rights has continued on with expansion to those opposed to the Left’s socialist national agenda while still fostering policies that keep minorities vulnerable.
It’s one of those pieces of history the Liberty grabber left would like to keep hidden away like pictures in a yearbook. In what hearkens back to the infamous Dred Scott decision with the right to keep and carry arms a factor, from the text of the decision:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
We and others have touched on this subject before with the point that that the original purpose of many Liberty control laws was to render certain minorities helpless in the face of KKK terror. This is exemplified in a recent article by David Kopel on The Racist Influence on Gun Control Laws:
How do you stop a lynch mob? With a Winchester repeating rifle. That was the advice of Ida B. Wells, the great journalist who led the fight against lynching. To frustrate her work, a new form of gun control was introduced.
On June 25, 1892, Wells penned an iconic article for the New York Age, which was reprinted as a nationally circulated pamphlet, “Southern Horrors.” After noting cases in which lynch mobs had been defeated by armed blacks, Wells continued: “The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for the protection which the law refuses to give.
While the laws are no longer overly racist, the incremental assaults on our Liberty adversely impact minorities as pointed out in article on The Racist Roots of Gun Control:
Any kind of licensing scheme on gun ownership represents a costly barrier to entry. Minorities of humble means are effectively priced out of their right to self-defense. Researcher John Lott explained last year in an article for The Hill how expensive licenses and fees for carrying weapons burden minorities and other vulnerable groups.
No matter how much progressives claim to defend minorities, supporting gun control does them a massive disservice. The fear and danger many inner-city dwellers in places like Baltimore and Chicago must contend with on a daily basis is only aggravated by the cities’ gun control policies.
Even the new rage of Gun Confiscation SWATing adversely impacts the most vulnerable. Since they may not have the resources to get back their property and their good name after it has been taken from them without due process. With these so-called ‘Red flag’ laws reported as reported on the site Bearing arms on The spike in gun confiscations thanks to so-called ‘Red Flag Laws’:
Right now, everyone seems to be crowing over the number of seizures, but how many actual tragedies have been avoided? More importantly, how many “false positives” have we seen. By that, I mean how many innocent, law-abiding people with no intention of harming another found themselves disarmed by force of law despite having done nothing wrong because someone else said they did?
While these seizures can be fought, not everyone can afford to do so, making them especially burdensome for the poor who often live in high-crime areas and often rely on their firearms for personal protection.
While Leftists have a distinct predilection in projecting their faults on others, the charge of racism is particularly galling. Since as Bill Whittle pointed out they have no real effect except on those who aren’t truly racist.
It is equally galling that Leftists incessantly push for gun confiscation and it’s precursor steps, a socialist agenda item that is steeped in racism. Meanwhile, they take on the air of being the champions of the downtrodden, the people most adversely affected by their quest for power in disarming the people.