The Gun Control Thread

[FORD]

Another reason to dump that shit and replace it with a single payer system.

Furthermore, Wayne LaPierre can stick a .50 Caliber rifle up his ass and pull the trigger if he believes that mental health records should NOT be part of the background check which should be required for ALL gun sales.

[Nitro Express]

Boy it would be rough getting that big ol' Barrett muzzle break up your ass. It's a big square chunk of metal. 50's are for wimps. You shit bigger if you have a 20mm.

[jacksmar]

I'm not sure I believe everything coming from "Ammoland." But even if it is completely true and not taken out of context, it's still one state level representative tantamount to saying imminent internet censorship because one fuckwit in the Georgia State House thinks photoshops should be banned if they're mean...

No it's not one state Nick, Use your googlebox and check for identical proposed gun confiscation legislation in the land of over 10,000 lakes.

Photoshop censorship was your response? Do you even understand how ignorant and utterly foolish that response was? Do you even realize what you did?

Do you even realize the only way to protect your "right" to photoshop someone in a less than flattering context is the 2nd Amendment?

Nick, (totally serious) WTF? Compare and contrast. And be sure to add a line or two of how "the founders never intended the 1st Amendment to include Photoshop". It hadn't been invented yet.

[Nickdfresh]

No it's not one state Nick, Use your googlebox and check for identical proposed gun confiscation legislation in the land of over 10,000 lakes.

I could give a fuck. Why would you? You don't live there either...

Photoshop censorship was your response? Do you even understand how ignorant and utterly foolish that response was? Do you even realize what you did?

No. Please tell me why it was foolish, captain paranoid. Legislation is often started by attention-seeker local pols and it goes nowhere...

Do you even realize the only way to protect your "right" to photoshop someone in a less than flattering context is the 2nd Amendment?

Nick, (totally serious) WTF? Compare and contrast. And be sure to add a line or two of how "the founders never intended the 1st Amendment to include Photoshop". It hadn't been invented yet.

You've never been to "college", have you?

[FORD]

You've never been to "college", have you?

Oh sure he has......

[jacksmar]

Off topic...TARD, Bob Jones is evil because.......???

Indiana University had a student named Jim Jones. Wackos do go to college and have gone to college. I support college educations for workers. Not for management positions or business ownership.

Back on topic...........

If Ubama wants background checks for the rest of us; you first asshole.

[jhale667]

Tedious troll is tedious.

[Seshmeister]

Why does the NRA with a membership of about 1% of the population have so much power?

[FORD]

Off topic...TARD, Bob Jones is evil because.......???

It's a training camp for the KKK, maybe?

Down in Carolina Way
Lived a man name o' Big BJ
BJ went and got a school
Founded on Caucasian rule
Bumper sticker on his Ford
Says, 'Honkies if you love the Lord'

[Nickdfresh]

Why does the NRA with a membership of about 1% of the population have so much power?

Especially when the majority of its members don't even agree with the fuckwits who run it and are far more moderate?

[jhale667]

La Pierre is fucking insane...

[ELVIS]

Gun Control Was – Historically – About Repressing Blacks

Washington's Blog

Preface: I was raised to be against guns. My parents hated guns, and believed that they only lead to crime and accidental shootings.

I was raised in a blue state, and I have long been deeply influenced by leading voices for non-violence, such as Gandhi and King. So – until recently – I was pro gun-control.

As such, I was stunned to learn about the historical background behind gun control campaigns.

The Real History of Gun Control

UCLA Constitutional law professor Adam Winkler – whose commentary has been featured on CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, and numerous other outlets, and who is a contributor to The Daily Beast and The Huffington Post – notes (via the Wall Street Journal):

[The history of gun control in America] was a constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt.

Brendan O’Neill notes at the Guardian:

For years – for two centuries, in fact – gun control was a largely Right-wing, reactionary campaign issue, not a Left-wing one. The fact that it has now been adopted by Leftists is very revealing indeed.

Before the 1980s, Right-wingers and racists were the most vocal in demanding that the states in America should strictly circumscribe gun ownership. Where the revolutionary government of 1791 made the second amendment to the US Constitution, which insisted on the right of the citizenry to bear arms as a safeguard against tyrannical government, successive legislators and campaigners who were freaked out by the prospect of former slaves getting hold of guns called for a rethink of this fundamental liberty. So after the Nat Turner rebellion of 1831, when a band of black rebels shot at white slave owners and freed their slaves, the state of Tennessee altered its constitution. Where once it had guaranteed that “the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence”, post-Nat Turner it said “the free white men of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence”.

Throughout the 1800s, states passed gun-control laws that were fundamentally racist. So, panicked by the prospect of more black rebellions against white landowners, the North Carolina Supreme Court passed a statute in 1840 that said: “If any free negro, mulatto, or free person of colour shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shotgun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife… he or she shall be guilty of a misdemanour, and may be indicted therefore.”

In the 1890s, Florida also passed race-specific gun-control laws. Then, in 1941, a judge in Florida’s Supreme Court called the laws into question when he overturned the conviction of a black man for carrying a handgun without a permit. He overturned the conviction, he said, because this law “was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro labourers … 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 and in practice has never been so applied.”

In the modern period, too, there was a hugely reactionary bent to gun-control campaigns. In the early 20th century new laws, such as the 1911 Sullivan Law in New York City, were passed to prevent the huge influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe from getting their hands on guns. As Gary Kleck puts it in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, gun control was anything but a liberal cause: “In the 19th and early 20th century, gun-control laws were often targeted at blacks in the south and the foreign-born in the north.”

Whatever you think of the National Rifle Association, it is hard to disagree with its observation that: “The historical purpose of gun-control laws in America has been one of discrimination and disenfranchisement of blacks, immigrants and other minorities”.

And avid gun control advocate Robert Sherrill notes in his book, The Saturday Night Special:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time.

[Nickdfresh]

Red herring horseshit. The Gun Control Act of 1968, much like The Gun Control Act of 1934, were responses to escalating violence and rapidly rising crime rates and social disorder...

[lesfunk]

Which begs to ask the question "why aren't they going after the weapons used in 99.4% of all gun crime instead of the AR platform weapons which are statistically insignificant when applied to gun related violence?"

[Nickdfresh]

Which begs to ask the question "why aren't they going after the weapons used in 99.4% of all gun crime instead of the AR platform weapons which are statistically insignificant when applied to gun related violence?"

A.) Because they're used in mass shootings

B.: