Posted on 04/21/2023 1:33:11 PM PDT by Twotone
CNN anchor Don Lemon abruptly ended a segment with Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy after a tense back-and-forth about gun rights and black Americans. What happened?
During an interview on "CNN This Morning," co-host Poppy Harlow asked Ramaswamy about his speech last week at the NRA convention. In that speech, Ramaswamy connected gun control laws and the campaign to oppress black Americans after the Civil War.
We fought a civil war in this country to give black Americans the equal protection under the law that we failed to secure them in 1776. But then, you want to know what happened? Southern states passed anti-gun laws that stopped black people from owning guns; the Democrat Party, then as in now, wanted to put them back in chains.
Ramaswamy told Harlow that he was referring to President Joe Biden's infamous 2012 claim that Republicans want to put black Americans "back in chains."
But in reality, Ramaswamy said, he believes the Democratic Party's agenda — from Lyndon Johnson to Joe Biden — is "really bad for the black community" and "holding black Americans back."
That's when Lemon registered his astonishment that Ramaswamy connected oppression to gun control laws.
"I don't really see what one has to do with the other," Lemon argued. "That war was not fought for black people to have guns."
"That war was fought for black people to have freedoms in this country, actually," Ramaswamy fired back. "That's why the Civil War was fought."
The men then embarked on a disagreement about whether black Americans enjoy any freedom today. Lemon argued they don't, a claim Ramaswamy said is a "disservice to our country." It was at that point that Lemon attempted to discredit Ramaswamy because he is not black.
"When you are in black skin and you live in this country, then you can disagree with me," Lemon told Ramaswamy.
"Don, I think we have to be able to talk about these issues in the open regardless of the color of our skin," Ramaswamy pushed back. "Black Americans today ... absolutely have equal rights in this country."
Lemon, however, claimed that Ramaswamy was "insulting" black people and said "it's infuriating" for Ramaswamy to connect gun control and the oppression of black Americans.
The two then argued back and forth over whose version of history is correct. Lemon said Ramaswamy was wrong, but when Ramaswamy asked Lemon to specify what he is wrong about, Lemon incorrectly restated Ramaswamy's argument, alleging Ramaswamy believes the Civil War was fought "only for black people to get guns."
At the end of their argument, Lemon appeared to retierate his belief that Ramaswamy had no justification for his argument because he is not black.
"I think we should be able to express our view regardless of the color of our skin. We should have this debate without me regarding you as a black man," Ramaswamy argued.
"I think it's insulting that you're sitting here explaining to me about what it's like to be black in America," Lemon responded.
The CNN host then ended the conversation by scolding Ramaswamy, telling him that he was not debating in a fair or honest manner.
Is Ramaswamy right? It is true that after the Civil War, southern states passed what are known as the "Black Codes" to prevent newly freed slaves from possessing and owning firearms.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Lemon’s reaction if you were to tell him that it would take American (and Canadian) criminals, along with the few Adam Lanzas and Eric Harrises and Dylan Klebolds, hundreds of centuries to equal the number murdered by governments in just the twentieth century alone (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in particular) after they legally disarmed their citizens.
Ha-Ha! First person to call for an unscheduled Commercial Break loses. Pay up, Donny-O! You were running scared.
Only way they can debate. Shut him off. Cancel.
Supreme Court To Decide If Dred Scott Should Apply To All Americans On Guns
Ramaswamy should follow the adage: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Hey, Lemon, F** off!
This token TWOT knows nothing about much of anything. Like BeijingBiden, if it weren’t for teleprompters they’d not know which new lie to tell.
Open carry was outlawed out here in CaCaLand when a bunch of uppity blacks showed up in a public street with guns. Law was immediately, within days, passed outlawing that. So, ‘Ell yeah gun laws are intended by the Democrats to oppress blacks. Blacks get killed more than any other group, ‘cause they live in blue cities that keep them from their human right to protect themselves. By design.
The Civil War was fought for State Rights vs. Federal Rights, same as today. Southern States wanted to retain their right to self determination in their laws and slavery happen to be one that they disagreed with the Union. There were many more.
“That war was not fought for black people to have guns.”
In any case maybe twenty years ago a history book I was using with my junior high kids had an illustration of Civil War era black family gathered outside of their shack/home. I asked the students if the people pictured were slaves or freemen. After a few minutes I point out the clue that they were, in fact, freemen: the shotgun propped up next to the door.
“Debating in a fair and honest manner” with Lemonade consists solely of making a sensible argument then giving way to Lemonaid’s argument. Head nodding agreement is he only proper debating style for someone “debating” a leftist.
“The War of Northern Aggression” is what I has taught in my 8th grades history class.
I’ve read that about the same percentage of freeman owned slaves as percentage of whites.
For us all:
by Jim Robinson
Wouldn’t it be great if we could complete this FReepathon in under 60 days? Please get your donations in early and let’s get ‘er done!
Thank you very much! Your support is greatly appreciated!
God bless you.
Absolutely correct. The Union States lacked the resources that were available in the south, but had most of the manufacturing ability. So the Northern States attempted to roll over Southern States and used their support of slavery as an excuse. After the South lost the War, the Northerners came down in droves (Carpetbaggers) to control the farming assets of the South. Originally, the South was supported by the French, but as usual, their partnership was based on winning only, not on principle. The Union States were ‘bending’ the Constitution even then to meet their requirements, while the Southern States fought for the U.S. Constitution as written, because that is what they agreed to when they joined the United States. Now the same states are trying to destroy the Constitution for the same reasons: It does not allow them to trample on the States Rights and stands in the way of their quest for power. “The War of Northern Aggresson” is more accurate from a Southern perspective, while the Northern States referred to it as the War of Rebellion, or Civil War.
Why don’t they ever bring up Nick Sandmann when CNN pulls this BS?
“... connect gun control and the oppression of black Americans.”
As much as I love President Reagan, it was due to the
Black Panthers showing up at protests with guns visible that prompted him to sign some of the early gun regulations in California.
BTW- Ramaswamy is great
This guy...Ramaswamy...interesting fella.
Bears some looning into, I think.
Yes, blacks were keen slaveowners. The first documented case of an American suing for the right to own another man for life was that of Anthony Johnson, a black man. He was born in Angola and came to the colony of Virginia as an indentured servant. He worked off his term of servitude then, as he grew wealthy growing tobacco, he began buying slaves of his own. He sued a neighbor for lifetime ownership of a slave named John Casor.
The Union States lacked the resources that were available in the south, but had most of the manufacturing ability.
After the war was lost, the South, which had been fairly wealthy had two huge problems. Much of their former wealth was in the value of the slaves held by the wealthy, but that wealth vanished with the passage of the 13th Amendment.
But it was a provision of the 14th Amendment that doomed the South economically. All debts, including currency issued by the CSA or any other the seceding states was null and void. Only US currency, gold and silver could pay debts, including real estate taxes. Carpetbaggers with lots of cash could buy up property for next to nothing since patriotic southerners had exchanged their gold and silver for Confederate bonds and banknotes.
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.