Defensive Carry banner

No Guns For *******

4K views 60 replies 36 participants last post by  Sheldon J 
#1 · (Edited)
I came across this fascinating mini-documentary on Blip TV about how gun laws have been -and still are - used to keep our black countrymen unarmed:
"No Guns for *******"
The most interesting thing (to me) was the mention of the Deacons for Defense and Justice, a voluntary militia (there's that dirty word again) of southern black Korea and WWII vets who protected civil rights marchers and black neighborhoods during that tumultuous era. I'm ashamed to say I'd never heard of them before. It also turns out that Professor Lance Hill of Tulane University published a book about them in 2006 which I plan on ordering very soon. Amazing stuff.
 
#4 ·
Another example of the history the liberal education system teaches, or should I say indoctrinates students with.

This should be mandatory view and the book mandatory reading, in every school in the country. But don't hold you breath waiting for that to happen.

There is much about American history that is being ignored, perverted or rewritten. Do a search on "black confederates". You be amazed at the history you will uncover.
 
#5 ·
I find it disturbing that we denied black countrymen the very rights they fought for,and today try to use the same rhetoric to disarm people of all colors and races,saying that guns commit violence when in reality guns in the hands of law abiding citisens prevent violence,I can only imagine the terror the KKK and other groups instilled in black americans and made it illegal for them to defend themselves.
 
#6 ·
Maybe I'm just slow and dimwitted, but that pseudo-documentary made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

My CHL class had about 25-percent black attendees. The gun shops and gun shows I visit have plenty of black attendees. If your city and state allows firearm ownership, race is not used to bar certain citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

If there are law restrictions, they apply to all citizens equally.

The only point I could potentially see this film making is that the producers would like to repeal laws barring felons from owning guns, but they didn't go there. So I'm at a loss to understand what the point of the film was.
 
#7 ·
You need to watch it again and put your prejudices aside. How many African-Americans were in your ccw class has nothing to do with the historical perspective this film is talking about.

You comment about the film wanting to repeal laws barring felons from owning guns is a truley repugnant statement

Whether your misunderstanding is due to "being slow and dimwitted", I can't say. But you are completely missing the point.
 
#8 ·
#10 ·
Good resource.

Been around for a while and cited here on DC at the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - Homepage site

First, I'd seen at blip.tv (since 2005) Also. sounds like this is a slightly updated version. Thanks for the site.

BTW -- there are some more good resources at the "Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership" site cited above. Check them out!

If this subject is new to you, you might want to check out: Black Man With A Gun » Guns, How-to's, News and a fun Podcast "The Urban Shooter"
Excellent web sites for 2-A information. :usflag:
 
#11 ·
You need to watch it again and put your prejudices aside
A film of this sort is like an essay. It should begin with a premise, develop that theme, and bring it to a conclusion, re-iterating the thesis statement and demonstrating how it was confirmed.

This mish-mash did nothing of the sort. It began confused and meandered all over the place. Repeatedly, the speakers make assertions that are not proven and in several places say things that are unquestionably false.

In the past, there were restrictions placed on gun ownership that did indeed affect the black community. The film does cite such laws and cultural biases adequately. But around the point where they get to Lyndon Johnson signing the 1968 Gun Control Act, the film loses focus.

Why does the film cite this act as being a factor in preventing blacks from owning firearms? There's a good reason I mentioned bans on felons owning guns, and taking umbrage over that, digitalex, implies that you are unfamiliar with the act. In short, it did three things:

First, it prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition. Second, it denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. Third, it prohibited the importation of surplus military weapons into the United States as well as guns and ammunition not federally certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs.
So why did the film raise the matter of the Act with respect to it being problematic for blacks who wish to own firearms? As I stated in my original comment above, black citizens in America who wish to own firearms face no restrictions beyond those that apply to anyone else of any race or background. The filmmakers appear to be saying that this is not so, but produce no evidence to support the claim.

All that said, Nixon's "War on Drugs" has been a tremendous assault on minority communities and a consequence of that does indeed affect firearm ownership. There are a number of salient points that can be raised on this subject, but the film didn't raise any of them.
 
#54 ·
A film of this sort is like an essay. It should begin with a premise, develop that theme, and bring it to a conclusion, re-iterating the thesis statement and demonstrating how it was confirmed.

This mish-mash did nothing of the sort. It began confused and meandered all over the place. Repeatedly, the speakers make assertions that are not proven and in several places say things that are unquestionably false.

In the past, there were restrictions placed on gun ownership that did indeed affect the black community. The film does cite such laws and cultural biases adequately. But around the point where they get to Lyndon Johnson signing the 1968 Gun Control Act, the film loses focus.

Why does the film cite this act as being a factor in preventing blacks from owning firearms? There's a good reason I mentioned bans on felons owning guns, and taking umbrage over that, digitalex, implies that you are unfamiliar with the act. In short, it did three things:



So why did the film raise the matter of the Act with respect to it being problematic for blacks who wish to own firearms? As I stated in my original comment above, black citizens in America who wish to own firearms face no restrictions beyond those that apply to anyone else of any race or background. The filmmakers appear to be saying that this is not so, but produce no evidence to support the claim.

All that said, Nixon's "War on Drugs" has been a tremendous assault on minority communities and a consequence of that does indeed affect firearm ownership. There are a number of salient points that can be raised on this subject, but the film didn't raise any of them.
As a black military vet and ccw, your comments speak volumes in regards to your position on a myriad of issues. This type of response is so sad because it is this ignorance that prevents us from seeing each other as a Americans and not as black or white.
 
#12 ·
I wouldn't feel to bad. It's my cultures history and I have never heard of them either. However now that you bring it up I plan on doing some more research!
 
#13 ·
washingtonpost.com

In Clarence Thomas's gun rights opinion, race plays a major role
By Courtland Milloy

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

He hardly ever speaks during oral arguments, often appearing asleep on the bench. But in his written opinion Monday supporting the right to bear arms, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas roared to life.
 
#14 ·
:congrats: Beat me to it. It's outstanding.

:schild42:
 
#16 ·
Even "Must Issue" states often have got-you's, which can are sometimes are applied with disparate effect.

For example, Va has:

LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-308

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

....

E. The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:

....

13. An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

....
 
#20 ·
I have to agree with shockwave. I don't get it. Maybe I am missing something, but I am NOT a racist. I just don't see their logic.


Nice job by the way guys, calling someone who disagrees with you a racist. Real nice.
 
#21 ·
Outstanding information! This video enlightened me on things I never even would have dreamed happened. I am glad that there are black Americans who see past the "color" barrier and see what this administration is actually trying to do . . . to ALL of us!
 
#22 ·
I was forced to watch "roots" for god sakes in history. And that was about it.

Why was I not afforded the oppurtunity to watch a documentary about John Adams or Thomas Jefferson? Gee I wonder why??????


Good thing my father and grandfather were both Veterans and highly regarded factual American History. I used to stun my school indoc....err I mean teachers when I corrected them on the actual history of the American Civil war and then challenged them to prove me wrong. I was the laughing stock until the end of the week and I stood and asked the teacher if they found the evidence. HAHA oh the times were fun and sad.

My kids will NOT go to government school. PERIOD! And they will have to teach me about the history of our Constitutional Republic. Let govt teach their democratic govt crap all they want but not to my kid.
 
#24 ·
The video is all over the place and the last half is full of misleading info. Not a fan. I see plenty of minorities of every race out at my local gun ranges, I do think that prior to the early 1900's Blacks in particular and minorities in general were completely hosed on MANY rights. But much of the law today is based around socio-economic issues vice race. Many of the problems in society today, in my opinion, are not RACE related - they are LIFESTYLE related. Doesnt apply all the time because I am sure there are plenty of racists out there of ALL race, color or creed.
 
#43 ·
I agree with your point on "lifestyle" related problems.

I think the video was good and made some points clearly, while I agree that the main point was simply hinted at in a subtle manner. I think the point of disarmig black communities was highlighted significantly in it's historical context, however the producers failed to come right out and say that the same thing still applies today, because....

They seem to have left that part out, so I will fill in what I think they meant to say:

The same discriminatory attitude still applies and negatively affects the black community today, proven by the fact that the places where the most restrictive gun laws and gun bans exist today (ie Chicago, N.Y., L.A. & other "inner cities" ) have a vastly higher percentage of minority residents.

It is almost like they were trying to say that because these cities have more blacks; and the lawmakers want to make sure that the blacks are unarmed because they are afraid of blacks with guns; they have the most restrictive gun laws which ultimately negatively affects the black population, because it makes all law abiding black citizens potential unarmed victims just like they were in the post-civil war - civil rights era. At least I think that was their point and if so, I think they are correct.

I still think it was a good video regardless. I also had never heard of that one group and will have to look into that interesting bit of history some more.
 
#26 ·
Isn't funny how the Brady bunch and the other gun grabbers such as Jesse Jackson are always comparing the NRA to the Ku Klux Klan, when in reality they're the ones that endorse the practises of the KKK.
 
#27 ·
I have seen this before and I still appreciate the educational process that directs the truth on the issues of gun control. As I still believe today, a politician, liberal or Conservative will not allow a resolution of an issue if it is to gain a political clarity and a political advancement of that party. I see the current administration unwillingness to address the inner cities problems and send personal, educational programs to and our money to other nations as opposed to investing in America and its people. I do not understand the motivation to give criminals more rights than the law abiding no matter what the race. I see this current administration investing in lip service that offers no hope as previously advertised. I see the lack of political education in the cities that continue to invest in policies that will keep the inner cities in poverty. Case in point, the lawsuit that prevents parts of North St Louis from being redeveloped. This would create hundreds of jobs for the city, create a source of income for small business in the community and a sense of pride. It didn't happen because some one sold a bill of goods to those uneducated on how those that control the population operate. The people fought to continue their poverty. As I see it, the same concept applies to gun control. Its been expanded from the application to blacks to all races. If the king is to have absolute control, he must not fear the masses but be the the source of fear. I suggest we all fight back at the polls this November. This is great and educational. Too bad we cant get the current administration to invest in some time to review it too. Just my .02 cents worth.
 
#28 · (Edited)
I watched and I've learned a lot in my almost 50 years. The one thing I have learned most of all was from my Dad and I have passed this down to my children are a few lessons.

- Treat everyone with respect until they show they don't want it.
- No one gave me anything, if you want something, work for it
- You don't owe anyone anything and don't let anyone say you do
- Take responsibility for where you are and what you do now in
todays society and live with what you do

My biggest one today, I was not around during all of this wrongs, I bare no responsibility for anything my Fathers Father had nothing to do with nor my Father nor me and I won't feel guilty about it. I will endeavor to be the best person I can and follow Rule #1 above.

If that's not good enough, then so be it. Live with it or not.

I agree with Atctimmy, just because someone doesn't agree with you view doesn't make them anything but disagreeable with your view and it was well stated and not prejudiced at all.

P.S. To stay with the topic, I believe and hold true to my military teachings and heart, that every American Citizen of this great country that I served for 20 years should be afforded the right to defend themselves and own a weapon if they so wish, no matter the color of their skin. That should make my stand very clear here.
 
#44 ·
I watched and I've learned a lot in my almost 50 years. The one thing I have learned most of all was from my Dad and I have passed this down to my children are a few lessons.

- Treat everyone with respect until they show they don't want it.
- No one gave me anything, if you want something, work for it
- You don't owe anyone anything and don't let anyone say you do
- Take responsibility for where you are and what you do now in
todays society and live with what you do

My biggest one today, I was not around during all of this wrongs, I bare no responsibility for anything my Fathers Father had nothing to do with nor my Father nor me and I won't feel guilty about it. I will endeavor to be the best person I can and follow Rule #1 above.

If that's not good enough, then so be it. Live with it or not.

I agree with Atctimmy, just because someone doesn't agree with you view doesn't make them anything but disagreeable with your view and it was well stated and not prejudiced at all.

P.S. To stay with the topic, I believe and hold true to my military teachings and heart, that every American Citizen of this great country that I served for 20 years should be afforded the right to defend themselves and own a weapon if they so wish, no matter the color of their skin. That should make my stand very clear here.
Well stated, I have felt that way for a long time myself. Why are we to pay for our ancestors sins?
 
#31 ·
To me the video is more than a discrimination against *******. It is a lesson on constitutional rights and how people and government can justify the need to eliminate a group(or groups) from sharing equal rights. It has happened to many groups in the past. We need to be educated about this type of constitutional inequality and try to prevent it in the future.
 
#33 ·
DaveH - I would submit as a response to those links you provided that again, they are not RACE specific so much as economically/lifestyle based. And as Clarence Thomas himself stated

" ...the problem is not that there are too many guns in the black community; the problem is too many criminals."

His words, not mine. I would imagine that any segment of society that produces a larger percentage of crime would have more restrictions put on it. That may or may not be the right thing to do. I am just calling it as I see it.
 
#34 ·
I would imagine that any segment of society that produces a larger percentage of crime would have more restrictions put on it.
So, a girl marries her high-school sweetheart in Busted Hump, Appalachia or Southside Virginia and move to Richmond. He goes to work for the local bottling plant, which switches to hiring people as independent contractors to avoid paying benefits. She is now an aging waitress, aching with arthritis. “Too tired to work, too poor to stop.” Neither of the pair is real bright, just ordinary Americans trying to make a living. They live paycheck to paycheck because they don’t know how not to. Neither is lazy. They both work hard. They just don’t know how to start the next Microsoft. Neither resorts to crime. He dies of a heart attack at 45. She can’t make the mortgage and ends up in Richmond Housing Authority subsidized housing and is thereby deprived of owning a gun.

Now you are OK with laws restricting her "segment of society" because it produces a larger percentage of crime?

Or you would also be OK with laws restricting males and limiting guns to females because the male "segment of society" has a "larger percentage of crime" than the the female "segment of society" ?

IMHO, no prior-restraints should apply to any "segment of society."

None!
 
#36 ·
If a crime is committed deal with it but DO NOT INFRINGE in advance before a crime is committed.

Its like telling me I cant eat a BigMac because I might get fat????

Well you Mr. Govt Politician, you have no idea if I might run 18 miles a week or work out at the local gold's gym 5 nights a week but you assume I am not like you which I am NOT so I am stupid.

November is coming folks! --- off topic yeah but still its coming.
 
#38 ·
Dave H, not saying that is right or OK, just saying that its not a race deal, its an economic one. Nothing more, nothing less.

:)

Edited to add:
My opinion on gun control is that the ONLY people that should be denied the right to own a gun are those that have already demonstrated INDIVIDUALLY that they are a danger to the rest of society by owning said weapon. To take it further, I dont think that any one should have to get a permit to carry a gun, concealed OR open - it is a natural right. But, right or wrong that is not the awy our society works right now.
 
#40 ·
Glenn Beck has been doing a GREAT job at bringing things like this to light. Those of us who watch his tv show are not surprised by this. I also think this kind of thing is one reason the liberal left hate him so much. (GB shines the "light of truth" on the progressive/liberal left's "HISTORY" of lies and oppression.)
 
#56 ·
I'm not a "liberal left" but Glenn Beck is a hype master. His show is created and designed to line his pockets with cash by feeding wing nuts exactly the type of stories what they want to hear.

He should get an Oscar for his crying spells. Pathetic really.

Oh... wait... I think I hear the Nazis marching down my street. Gotta go.
 
#41 ·
Good vid, it seemed to broaden a bit towards the end to just no gun control. That's OK though.

Some folks have said that the law should just apply to everyone. That sounds good, but I can tell you that all of us in NC are still paying for gun control geared at disarming blacks. No carry at parades, funeral processions, picket lines, hmm. No carry during states of emergency or riots, hmmm x2. Shall issue pistol purchase permits that allow the Sheriff to make additional requirements over and above the law, hmm. Look at any of the gun laws that don't make a lot of sense and ask "who do they effect most" and "why would you need that"? I'm not one to play the race card, being a white guy, but it sure looks like that motivated our laws in the past.
 
#42 ·
+ 1

I, too am not one to play the race card, also being a white guy.

FWIIW, I'd add to your
ask "who do they effect most" and "why would you need that"?
the additional question. "do they create too many opportunities to be applied unevenly."
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top