Ladd Everett is going to hate this:
But doesn’t “common sense†gun control help to protect marginalized communities? Well plain and simply, no it doesn’t. In fact most gun control actually has the opposite effect leaving marginalized communities unarmed and defenseless in the face of violence. Gun control actually has quite the racist history. Many of the first gun laws enacted by the united states government were in order to keep slaves and free black people from owning or carrying firearms except under supervision of their master for fear of slave rebellions. The uprisings led by John Brown and others and the slave armies formed during the Civil War proved their fears to be true. For those enslaved, guns meant freedom. Decades later during the height of the black civil rights and liberation movements Martin Luther King, Jr. was denied a gun permit after his house was firebombed in 1956, Malcolm X urged African Americans to defend themselves using any means necessary, the Black Panthers held open carry marches, and the National Rifle Association delved into gun politics for the first time.
No wonder Ladd has been upset lately that the left is abandoning him. All that research on the history of gun control, and its use for disarming marginalized communities, was done by our academics, and people are listening.
I love pointing out the racist history of gun control. Especially NC’s permit system, where legislators were proudly open of its purpose.
Part 6 of that series was just posted today, I think.
Parts 1 through 5 may each contain something to offend many “on the right,” but I don’t recall anything that should offend regarding the issue of “gun control,” per se.
Overall, an interesting perspective, that should be educational in terms of how “others” think.
Nothing offensive, just quite a lot wrong. I especially chuckled at the extolling of the virtues of Unionism, which, with delicious irony, missed on providing the two examples of Unions who make the lives of minorities more difficult; namely, government sector unions, and even more so, *Police Unions*.
Also the jab at “Right To Work” (Unionism was dead long before that concept) is quite funny.
Some stuff on the NRA is overstated, and many of the current benefits understated. You can almost feel the internal squirming when complaining about alleged latent racism, yet have to acknowledge Colion Noir and Antonia Okafor. I know they’ve been a difficult pill to swallow for many black gun owners who’ve been raised in the Leftist bubble.
I find it immensely odd that a political philosophy that has deliberately made its way into various multimillion-member institutions and organizations seems to have forgotten about such tactics when it comes to the NRA. You really think the NRA is latently racist? Then do what you did with the Media, the educational system, government environmental departments, and many others; join up en mass, and change it from within. It’s how we moved the NRA from Gun Culture 1.0 to 2.0. Hell, we even had a revolution to do it! Can you say as much?
The Martin/Zimmerman references were pretty ridiculous, but it was nice to see someone from the Left acknowledge the Drug War failure, and her focus on local solutions was laudable.
Overall though, I think these are relatively small points. The emphasis on gun owners as a local support group in dealing with issues is very much in line with the “Modern Militia” concept as practiced on the Right these days, especially as it relates to neighborhood security during natural disasters. Then again, our neighborhoods have fewer internal issues, so it comes somewhat easier for the Right than it does the Left.
It is really good to see some degree of awakening to gun rights on the Left, even if it is for many of the analogous transient, nebulous reasons we see from the Right on occasion. If the Right can survive with our own crackpots arming themselves for FEMA/UN invasions, I think the Left can survive their Racist-around-every-corner paranoia.
It’s clear Leftist gun ownership is undergoing an evolution. It certainly has needed one, and there are historical affiliations with racism and gun control that will make it more difficult for them. But my main hope is that after Trump is a memory, they’ll still value gun rights and ownership, and won’t simply slip back onto the reservation once a more amenable politician is in the Oval Office. Time will tell.
It is my impression that Leftist tend to support gun ownership when out of power- but when they get it, they immediately start trying to restrict gun ownership to disarm any potential opposition.
Both sides of the political spectrum never think “What would happen when the OTHER side is in power”.
Exactly so. The country is split 50-50. The differences are not able to be bridged so the only alternatives are partition or civil war. I prefer the former.
“the only alternatives are partition or civil war.”
I’m guessing you are assuming that where you live now will be in the portion that believes what you believe.
I’m also guessing you are assuming that people’s philosophies can be so easily parsed into only two laundry-lists of beliefs and opinions, that each portion of the partition will live in happy harmony.
If for simplicity you look only to what are presently represented as “red” and “blue” states, one political party may prevail in those states, but that doesn’t mean they are without substantial dissenting opinion. What shall those states do with their dissenters? Round them up and force them to leave?
Maybe it’s not the best analogy, but Ireland was partitioned in 1921, and for almost a century we’ve seen how well that has worked. And yes, in 1922 – 1923 there was an attempt in Northern Ireland to round up and expel dissenters. But there were still enough to carry on a 30-year civil war, beginning nearly 50 years later. And the dissenters remain undefeated, and now are beginning to prevail democratically, much to the chagrin of those who made up the original “mainstream” there.
Partition has to be done with a lot finer filter than states. Counties or even precincts. Even so there will be millions left behind enemy lines. Using counties, it is possible to create 4-5 Peoples Republics that are contiguous and have access to the ocean or an international border. The US is easy as it is most of the land area. For those left behind enemy lines, a voluntary relocation program would be desirable. The alternative of civil war is too horrible to contemplate. Compromise is impossible be cause leftists will not keep any bargain they make. And of course, they hate us and want us dead.
Having grown up when it was taken as a given that anyone advocating the dissolution of the United States was being controlled almost directly by Moscow, it astounds me how thoroughly Putin has infiltrated and subverted our right wing, while no one noticed.
Is Calexit also a Russian plot?
Yes
I generally expect Moscow will get involved in anything that weakens our position in the world. If it ever did come to Civil War, I’m sure they would delightfully smuggle weapons to both sides.
Nice essay. I’m forwarding to a lot of my fellow lefties. I disagree with a lot of the “solutions” (unions? That is so 1970s, bro), but the set up is good.
An educated voter is gun owners’ best asset.
Yep, it definitely beats a lot of what has gone before.
“unions? That is so 1970s, bro…”
Isn’t that a little bit like saying “guns are so 19th century, bro?” ;-)
Before continuing with my analogy, which I’m throwing out just for discussion and critique, let me stipulate that I have had my ass on both ends of the labor spectrum; I’ve worked as a scab, and worn handcuffs as a result, and I’ve invoked unionism to astounding effect later, when management of one of the defense divisions of a major corporation was screwing with us professional employees.
As I see it today, workers without a union are riding the labor market bareback, with no viable means of self-defense. To return to my analogy, it is like walking down a dark street at midnight, without a gun because darn it, you shouldn’t ought to need one. Except, you and I know you do need one.
Unions are like guns. Their use can be and has been abused by careless or criminal or self-serving people. But that some people abuse them doesn’t justify abandoning them as so last century.
In my pro-union experience, at one time when the aerospace workers labor market was tight, management started screwing with us in extremely petty and unprofessional ways. One night I and a fellow worker went around the building posting flyers that said only, maybe we ought to start talking about a professional workers union, and inviting people to think about it.
By 10:00 AM the following morning the company called an all–hands meeting at which it acknowledged our posters, and allowed as how maybe they had been acting a little hastily with their new work rules. To me their instant retreat was a clear sign that they had deliberately been probing us, to see exactly how much we’d allow them to push us before we fought back — in the only rational way possible. We had called them on it, and the probing stopped.
We never took the organizing any further, but I never forgot its effect when we had needed it. I was as impressed as I had been when my mom had grabbed a rifle from behind the door when I was a kid, to display to some guy who was menacing her out on the farm. I always have liked guns anyway, but watching that tough-guy run literally screaming from a 5’2″, 100-pound woman helped seal my affections for the practical value of guns for all time.