Gun Control

[sksguns]

I was interested in when Gun Control was first introduced. So out of curiousity I did a search on the internet and found several sites but I decided to read the one below. I had no idea it was based on racism. This is only the into. I would reccomend looking at this page and any others you can find.

Does this make liberals racists?

Oh, there is an interssdting comparison to how hitler (purposely lowercase as he was a POS!!!!) disarmed the Jews before WWII. I remember is being discussed in another thread but the similiarities are frightening.

http://www.coradpress.com/gun_control.htm

CORAD on Gun Control
The history of gun control in America has targeted at blacks and other minorities. 13 In fact, the first gun control law in America was legislated in 1792 to disarm black slaves. The law served one purpose, to deny blacks their right to exercise their Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. This was an insult to the very black people who had just fought the oppressive British to free this nation from a tyrannical government. It is ironic that the British tried to enslave the colonists by attempting to disarm them as well. It is well known that the consequences for England’s transgression of the colonists, was retribution by brave revolutionaries. Ironically, by denying blacks the essential right of the freedom to bear arms, gun control laws were legislated that allowed slave owners to retain blacks as slaves with impunity. Slave owners knew that like the British, if blacks could arm themselves, they would face an uprising from slaves, which would have in essence ended slavery in a heartbeat.

In fact, look at the major attempts of valiant yet unsuccessful slavery revolt over a 200 year history: ( the list is on the page.)

 

[JimB]

hitler did the same thing

The Jews were defensless (as i understand it) so the Germans ran over
them....

JImB

 

[KMaurer]

Actually you can't blame the little paper hanger for the whole thing. The socially progressive Weimar Republic under Hindenberg, introduced strict gun control before the nazis gained a toe-hold in the government. The goose-stepers just started enforcing it more strictly against some groups than others. Since not too many people had any real objections to that, it was only a short hop to enforcing it against everyone except themselves and their supporters.

Ken

 

[RKG]

I had no idea it [i.e., gun control] was based on racism.

I am familiar with some of these studies, and while what they report is true enough, they are an example of how an answer can be "adjusted" by adjusting one's focus.

Gun control is but a subset of what might be called "weapons control", or "force control." In general, governments (starting with monarchs) and institutions are fearful of the general populace. So viewed, "force control" long antedates firearms; indeed, in feudal times, there were restrictions on who could and who could not maintain the private armies that existed.

Indeed, for many centuries, only those in power (either governmental or institutional) were allowed to learn to read, it being thought that literacy was power and keeping the masses illiterate insured keeping them obedient. One of the greatest proponents of this theory was the Catholic church; only priests were literate (which is why they are called "clerics").

Late 19th and early 20th century applications of "gun control" may have been focussed on newly emancipated blacks, but that is only because at the time that group was the group whose rebellion was feared. And even then, this group was feared not because of its racial trait, but because it represented a defined socio-ecomonic group with an axe to grind.

So I don't think that it is historically accurate to say that "gun control was based on racism." If a generalization is required (in a field in which generalizations can be dangerously misleading), I think it would be more accurate (at least slightly more accurate) to say that one's views on gun control mirror one's view on the relationship of the individual to society. If you view citizens as peasants, you favor gun control; if you view society is simply an aggregation of individuals with individual rights, you do not.

 

[Thor67]

I had seen something on this in American Hundguner (I think) on this a few months ago. Pretty interesting!

 

[jhrosier]

Whether it is Blacks, or Indians, or poor white folks, the purpose of gun control is always to keep the "lower classes" in their place.
Gun control is about control, not guns.

The Liberal Manifesto
In our country and most others, there is a clearly defined upper, or ruling, class.
The upper classes play, the lower classes work.
The leaders posture and pontificate, the soldiers die in battle.
The rulers make laws, the subjects obey.

The upper classes generally depend on the willing cooperation of the rest of the population to keep this system working in their favor. They have been known to offer incentives to the masses to elicit the desired result. Some of these incentives are:
- Bread and circuses.
- Welfare payments and the promise of security.

Individualism and self reliance can cause some people to not fit in this kind of society, and is usually strongly discouraged.

- Fear, uncertainty, and doubt will often demoralize the more independant minded subjects to a state of resignation. The constant threat of impending and inevitable doom, projected through the media can be effective in this regard. It is also helpful to marginalize any religious leaders who suggest anything except humble acceptance of the situation.

-Well educated people can be unnaturally confident and inconvieniently resourceful. They tend to ignore the incentives that compell the masses to remain dependent on the largess of the ruling classes. Since it is not practical to deny even the lower classes an education, the quality of the education is commonly kept quite low. Subjects that have little practical application are mandated and presented as ineptly as will not arouse suspicion.

-The most effective way to neutralize troublemakers is through isolation. If the masses of population can be made to mistrust, disrespect, and fear their neighbors, there is little chance that they will organize any effort to change the system. One way to isolate any potential troublemakers is to create smaller groups, by labeling, and assign people to those groups by virtue of their professed interests. Any group can be thus divided into "quaint" through "unacceptably dangerous" categories, and then dealt with appropriately. The effects of uncertaintly can be enhanced by changing or threatening to change the labels periodically, to less "socially acceptable" labels.

-Finally, a system of laws which is largely evolved to incomprehensibilty can be useful to maintain the desired social structure. The laws should be written in a language that is difficult to understand or archaeic. The masses should be made to believe that it is beyond their feeble abilities to interpret or even understand these laws. A special class of rulers can then be created to administer the laws to the advantage of the ruling classes. If the general population is encouraged to select their rulers from a pre-approved group of candidates, they will be much less likely to rebell against the system.