The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71707
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3410 times
Been thanked: 1257 times

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:14 am

Think gun control reduces crime? Think again!

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Post by RCC » Sun Jul 11, 2004 4:19 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Think gun control reduces crime? Think again!

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
The conclusion you draw from the article is faulty. Then again perhaps you are making a really sophisticated joke and are actually criticizing the article...

Even if we declare all gun control as somehow racist, this does not lead the conclusion that it does not reduce crime. A law placing all white people in prison would be racist, but it would also decrease crime as a function of there being less people to commit same.

My favorite howlers from the article:
In 1859 in Cockrum v. State, the Texas Supreme Court recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment and Section Thirteen of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of bowie knives) was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with bowie knives, but could not prohibit their being carried.

...

Yet, by 1872 in English v. State, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for individual self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions. Rather than explaining or justifying why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid, the court merely explained that the issue of the right to bear arms "was not fairly before the court" in Cockrum.
Classic tactic of the gun nut crowd, assign unwarrented significance to mere dicta even though a later case with the actual power to decide the issue rules otherwise.

In Cockrum, the court was to decide whether a law making what would have been manslaughter into murder based on the use of a bowie knife, violated the constitutional right to bear arms. They said it wasn't. That is the end of the significance of Cockrum. The court has no power to make any further findings of law, as the issue of whether the right to carry a weapon cannot be regulated further is not before the court. Thus, its comments as to that issue have no force in law whatsoever. They are an opinion, no more binding on future decisions than the paragraph I am typing right now.

To suggest otherwise is to advocate judicial activism of the highest order, which is oddly enough the very concept that the gun people are forced to object to as the courts have been pretty clear as to what they think of the nature of the Second Amendment.

Another chestnut:
Throughout the history of the United States, our courts have often avoided directly answering questions about the constitutional limits of gun control.
Our courts have been quite clear about the nature of the second amendment. It is just that people who don't like what is said try to confuse the issue to make it seem grayer than it really is. Interesting that our scholar does not even mention the Miller decision.

If the author would have theorized that gun control developed as a mechanism of economic discrimination and control, he would at least have a point. However, it would be the same point that socialists make when they go on about how all property is theft and how the present system is set up to screw the poor and so on. Even the author pretty much admits that at present day his theory is valid only as to economic criteria in that the only way he can connect it to race is to make the assumption connecting race to economic class.

Mr.Weasel
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:15 am
Location: Texas

Post by Mr.Weasel » Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:30 pm

Here in California even the state legislature's research arm — hardly a nest of pro-gunners — has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males.(63)
Don't we need to know the racial breakdown of the applicants before we can look at the racial breakdown of the issuances and conclude racism?

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71707
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3410 times
Been thanked: 1257 times

Re: The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:12 pm

RCC wrote: The conclusion you draw from the article is faulty. Then again perhaps you are making a really sophisticated joke and are actually criticizing the article...
Nope. I really am what you call a gun nut, though I don't currently own a gun due to being law abiding in a jusridiction that prohibits me. But I don't like it.

I had a concealed-carry permit when I lived in New York (State not City. I could not legally carry in the City). I never actaully carried, but I did a bunch of pistol shooting practise as a sport.

To get the permit, in addition to resdiency requirements and the like, I needed four affadavits attesting to my good character and the permission of the county sheriff.

I went along with it, but I consider this excessive.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:04 pm

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You're right, RCC: there is no grey area here. So why are the judicial advocates not the ones who have been trying to obfuscate our rights away? Why is it judicial activism to insist that the Constitution means what it says?
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by RCC » Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:24 pm

shanek wrote:"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You're right, RCC: there is no grey area here. So why are the judicial advocates not the ones who have been trying to obfuscate our rights away? Why is it judicial activism to insist that the Constitution means what it says?
I never said there was no gray area as to what the 2nd amendment means. People can disagree. I said there is not much gray area that the opinions of the United States Supreme Court as to the nature of the 2nd, that they give legal effect to the first clause in that gun ownership must be connected to the "well regulated militia" to be covered.

It is advocating judical activism to maintain that dicta is valid and controlling precident, as it purports to expand the power of the courts to hear cases not brought before them. Courts have the power to set precident by settling disputes, they do not have the power to simply declare what the law is outside of that function.

If you wish to contest that, go ahead.

Other than that you are just defining activism as being decisions you disagree with. Even assuming you are right, then Miller is not "judicial activism" rather it is just a bad decision. The question was before the Court and the Court answered it.

User avatar
shanek
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Starbug 1

Post by shanek » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:50 pm

RCC wrote: I never said there was no gray area as to what the 2nd amendment means. People can disagree. I said there is not much gray area that the opinions of the United States Supreme Court as to the nature of the 2nd, that they give legal effect to the first clause in that gun ownership must be connected to the "well regulated militia" to be covered.

It is advocating judical activism to maintain that dicta is valid and controlling precident, as it purports to expand the power of the courts to hear cases not brought before them. Courts have the power to set precident by settling disputes, they do not have the power to simply declare what the law is outside of that function.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
There is an old android saying. In binary it reads: 01001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001
00000011101110110010101100001011100100110100101101110011001
1100100000011100000110000101101110011101000111001100100001. Makes you think, huh?

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71707
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3410 times
Been thanked: 1257 times

Re: The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:04 pm

Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 20014
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 604 times

Re: The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Post by Rob Lister » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:12 pm

Well good. We haven't come to a single consensus in 14 years. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this horse is dead.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 71707
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3410 times
Been thanked: 1257 times

Re: The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:34 pm

I miss shanek.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale