Posted on 08/12/2008 1:35:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2008 Democratic Party’s draft platform confirms that the party still “doesn’t get it” about Second Amendment gun rights versus the Utopian fantasy that gun control laws will somehow make neighborhoods safer, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“While promising to preserve our Second Amendment rights,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “the party platform demonizes semiautomatic sport utility rifles and wants them banned, calls for anti-gun show legislation and proposes so-called ‘common-sense’ gun laws. Many Democrats believe bans on most guns are ‘common sense’ and they still support the handgun ban in Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago. Boiled down, all it really means is that the Democrats are still the party of gun control no matter how they try to re-package the rhetoric, and they know it.”
Gottlieb, co-author of a new book called These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns, said the party is shamelessly telling American gun owners that they embrace the rights of millions of shooters, hunters and gun collectors, “but there’s a caveat.”
“The party’s gun control platform plank puts the lie to everything they say,” he added. “As Democrats descend on Denver to nominate a candidate who is on record in opposition to sensible concealed carry laws, we encourage gun owners across the country, and especially in Colorado, to remind the party that the Supreme Court in June held that gun bans are unconstitutional. Yet here they are, calling for a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ even after years of experience tells us that Bill Clinton’s ban accomplished nothing, and cost the party control of Congress in 1994.
“Democrats want to regulate gun shows out of business,” he continued, “even after a study done for the Justice Department found that gun shows are rarely the source of firearms used by criminals. Gun shows provide a forum, a gathering place for law-abiding gun owners to discuss ideas and issues, and share constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. Increasingly, Democrats seem averse to the exercise of these rights by anyone who does not share their philosophy. And this is the party of inclusion?
“Democrats have an opportunity to reject and repudiate this platform,” Gottlieb concluded. “If they do not, that tells American gun owners everything they need to know about Democrats as November approaches.”
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Hmmmmm, and here I thought I remembered that George H.W. Bush signed that ban into law and his son promised to renew it if it reached his desk!
Empirically gun-control is racist, from its beginnings to now.
Ask yourself where and why there is a call for gun control.
Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston, etc. All high minority locations. Who is killing who? What do the FBI statistics read?
Go to philly.com and take a look at the shooting and murder map by race. Note Latinos not identified, but with the cursor over the shooting the name will come up, more often than not Latino.
Scum democrat socialists, communists and fascists don’t want Americans killing them when they come around to fit us for chains.
Yup, looks like a Mosin-Nagant 91/30
Roots are not the whole tree. I am still waiting for someone to show me credivle evidence that gun control laws are aim,ed at any specific race while leaving the other races untouched.
I still think the very idea of gun control laws is sdtupid -- they never have and never will work for the benefit of anyone but the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
As far as I have been able to determine, "Saturday Night Special" is a term applied to cheaply made, inexpensive hand guns; easily avilable to rich and poor alike, black/white/tan/yellow/red alike, and even the ladies can get one if they so desire.
What is racist about that?
You just lost me.
How can it be racist when the gun-control-nuts want to criminalize possession of guns BY ALL RACES; and throw those who desire to possess that means of protecting their lives, families and property in jail? What is racist about that???????
There -- makes a pretty good tagline now.
What is racist about that?
While that's what it's generally accepted to mean now, you appear to be unaware of origins of the term: It was originally called a "Ni**ertown Saturday Night Special". Over the years, the first word has been dropped from the description. I can recall my father using the full term in the early to mid 1950s.
Some relevant highlights (pardon the informal citation):
"Those practices ended when the General Assembly passed Georgia’s first gun ban. The 1833 law provided that 'it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever.'" (p.2)
"The court proclaimed that 'Free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.' This ruling would form the basis for the expulsion of black legislators in 1868." (p.3)
"The selective application of the law started immediately as the law was ignored by white supremacists that had armed themselves and gathered at the polls to prevent blacks and Republicans from voting on Election Day in November 1870." (p.4)
"The Atlanta Journal advocated the forcible disarming of all blacks in an editorial titled 'Disarm the Negroes.' The Journal would get their wish in 1910, four years later." (p.7)
"Alabama passed a law banning the possession of all guns smaller than 24 inches. The illusion was that this law was race neutral; however everyone understood that the law would only apply to blacks and troublesome whites." (p.10)
"'The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State...the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers...The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.'" (p.10)
"...the Governor signed a law that required a license to carry a firearm in public issued by the Ordinary (now issued by a Probate Judge). The qualifications and method was similar to those that disfranchised blacks two years earlier...In the unlikely event a black man could post the bond, the Ordinary, who was always white since blacks could not hold civil office, could be counted on not to issue licenses to blacks." (p.11)
Just like redlining that encopasses all races within a geographic boundary but has a disparate impact on a group in particular. The courts have declared this unconstitutional.
Whether the geographic boundary is Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia or anywhere else that denies all races their civil rights, the policy has a disparet impact and is meant to target minorities.
A net cast to catch tuna that also captures some MAHI MAHI still is cast to catch tuna.
All well and good. Nothing new. So now cite some statutes that are applicable today that so discriminate agains blacks [or others of any race] BY NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF SKIN COLOR.
If ment to specifically apply to minorities, then how come people of all races are slapped in jail for not obeying such laws. [And plese don't try to tell me that's not true.]
It applied at the term. I was referring to the racist origins of the time, rather than its current, whitewashed (pardon the pun) usage.
When was the last time your heard it referred to like that?
As I said in my original post, it was in the early to mid 1950s.
If you did, you heard the rantings of a died-in-the-wool bigot.
That's certainly true. In New Jersey, though, it was a commonly-held sentiment at the time.
I'd expect that much of that sentiment lingers even today. In the mid 1980s, I had to explain to my 12-year-old daughter, on her return to California, what her uncle meant when he referred to a kid across the street as a "'breed". She had no concept of the term or the racism behind it.
I know it's unbelievable, but I actually just did. The Ordinary (now called the Probate Judge) to this day is the party who issues carry permits in Georgia, unlike every other state where a Sheriff or a state body issues them. The prohibition on carrying to a "public gathering" is another example of such a law still on the books (and still enforced) today.
There are, of course, more recent "gun control" laws that disproportionately affect minorities, although it is no longer permissible to explicitly state that such is their intent. Bans on so-called "Saturday night specials" (the very term being racist) serve to disarm primarily the poor, a larger percentage of whom are minorities. These laws generally do not disarm criminals, who steal their weapons or obtain them illegally on the street and so prefer larger-caliber high-quality weapons like Glocks or S&Ws. So the main target of these laws is law-abiding poor people, who are disproportionately minorities.
Another example: the so-called "assault weapons ban" targeted the type of weapon most useful for self-defense in a situation of civil disorder or rioting. You may recall during the Rodney King riots seeing the Korean shopkeepers defending their stores with ARs; those were the stores that survived. That type of civil disorder doesn't strike in the suburbs of Mayberry; it occurs in areas that are overwhelmingly populated by minorities. I would be surprised if you could find a large-scale civil disturbance in the U.S. in the past 50 years that didn't occur in a majority-minority area.
You seem to be working under the misapprehension that for a policy to have a racist or biased background or overtones, it needs to explicitly state that it applies only to a given race, and that it is enforced exclusively against members of a given race. Neither is true, and Jim Crow laws aren't acceptable today just because they get enforced against some white folks now too.
The term itself is racist, as it is a reference to “’n-word’-town Saturday night.”
Check out the Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SATURDAY+NIGHT+SPECIAL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.