How is prejudice against Blacks different from prejudice against guns?

How is prejudice against Blacks different from prejudice against guns?
Let me ask you this: statistically, who is more dangerous, a gun owner or a Black man? Does that mean we should take away freedom for "the good of the rest of society" ? No, of course not. You have nothing more to worry about if your next door neighbour happens to be a gun owner than if a Black family moved in. Prejudice against guns is fundamentally no different than prejudice against Blacks. I thought our society had moved past prejudice, but apparently not.

The first group in America to advocate for gun control was the Ku Klux Klan, who believed Blacks could not be trusted to own a gun. Every time there was a gun crime commited by a Black person, it just reinforced the idea that Blacks should not have guns, at least in the minds of many Southerners. Many crimes were committed by white people too, but it was Black crime that was most sensationalized in the media. This is just like with murders. 98% of gun murders in America are not committed with "assault weapons", but we never seem to hear about that in the media. The Ku Klux Klan did not believe Blacks could be trusted with a gun, but gun control advocates are even worse; they don't believe anyone in society can be trusted with a gun unless they belong to professional law enforcement employed by the government.

 

I don't think you should own either if you have to ask that question.

 

While I agree that the first major gun control laws in The US were aimed at African Americans. The fact that laws always seem to effect the poor in today's society more than the other classes. Would be a big reason for my opposition to them.

There is no reasonable way you can compare a object to a human. An American human that has all the rights and privileges of any other American. We protect the rights of citizens to own a object. The object itself has no rights.

 

Who is more dangerous, a black man or a gun owner? That question can't be answered because there is not good data everywhere in the world where guns and black people are located.

Loaded guns must have some sort of energy applied to them for them to fire---in almost every case it is a person pulling the trigger on purpose. Modern guns are very safe in proper hands, but other tools and machinery like Skil saws, automobiles and chainsaws are even more "dangerous."

At least in the US, young black males are about 1% of the population, but commit 25% of all murders. The Dept of Justice has put out studies that show Blacks do about 10 times more crime that non-hispanic whites. Here is a watered-down version here:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/ageracesex.cfm

Since most muders are done with stolen and illegally obtained guns, they are "possessed" by felons, not owned. If someone knows the crime statistics of a certain area that is very high crime, they are not pre-judging it. They already know it is bad. This isn't prejudice against individuals, it's nothing personal, it's just common horse sense.

 

LOL--i agree. If you don't know the answer to the question, you really should not be trusted with firearms. The fact that the OP is a gun enthusiast, is somewhat scary.

 

I do not even own any guns.

I am just pointing out that gun owners are a minority too, and are being irrationally discriminated against by the rest of society that does not owns guns, does not know much about them, and would not be (directly) affected by the bans they seek to impose. The right to own a gun is deeply integral with the right of freedom. It is the former that secures the latter, not a paternalistic omnibenevolent government.

 

Ok, I'll give a slightly less dismissive answer...
Passing legislation relating to controlling the types/quantities/access to guns is similar to passing legislation relating to cars, or homes, or any other inanimate object. It does not attack a circumstance of birth for which the individual is not responsible. As such, your entire analogy is flawed.

Is that clear enough?

 

The word gun is never used in the constitution (the document that gives you your freedom). It does mention firearms, which in any description or definition I have read also includes RPG's, rocket launchers, and hand grenades. So if you truly want the outmoded, outdated, literal words of people who lived 250 years ago, to run our lives, than let's let everyone in America own and use in their defense a NUCLEAR BOMB (which is by definition a firearm and not specified as something you shouldn't own in the constitution (the document that gives you your freedom)).

Use your brain and interpret the constitution in a reasonable and rational way. Don't dogmatically follow any literature just to support your selfish reasoning.

 

Not living in a society that includes people who may (accidentally or otherwise) kill someone I know - is certainly a direct effect on my life.
Having served in the military, particularly in the infantry, I wager I'd know as much or more about guns than the average owner.

Would you say the people of every other first-world democracy in the world are LESS free than Americans? Please elaborate on how.

While you're at it, please elaborate on your understanding of the role of government. Why do we have one?

 

Many of your "first world" European countries like Germany and the UK do not have freedom of speech. They don't. You can be arrested for saying or writing on different subjects like homosexuality and the Holocaust.

You have no consitutional right to self protection. Whatever the government at that time says is adequate goes.

As a disciple of Marx, you have already written about the socialist programs that you support.

You support collective rights, not individual rights.

 

I don't believe that collective rights and individual rights are mutually exclusive, but on those occasions when they do not match - I'm a big enough person to put the good of my country ahead of my personal entitlements.

You've made some pretty huge declarations regarding freedom of speech in different countries... Can you provide a link supporing ANY of that? That's like saying teachers can get arrested in the US for refusing to teach kids creationism.

 

Yeah, and 100% of murders in the US are not committed with nuclear weapons, but I don't think I would want to let some disgruntled employee or drunken idiot have one.

 

so, then define firearm and then define gun. Their intent was for the average citizen not only to defend their homes against intruders, gut to be able to defend their Liberties against those who would deprive them of those Liberties.
It was written at the time and it covered all time. as far as nukes go, how many people do you know that has the kind of money it takes to possess one?
As far as the other stuff, RPG's, Shoulder fired launchers, sidewinders and that kind of weaponry is so closely watched by Uncle Sam, they'd know where that stuff is.
Again, it depends on how deep your pockets are that relates to what you own.

 

Why not? you are allowing an idiot who doesn't believe in America have an entire arsenal of nukes at his command.
It is pitiful to compare a gun to a nuke............too much coffee?????

 

en·ti·tle·ment (nt)
n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: "fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor" (Jason DeParle
entitlement
noun
1. right, claim, due, licence, permission, privilege, prerogative You lose your entitlement to benefit when you start work.
2. allowance, grant, quota, ration, allocation, allotment, apportionment such benefits as sick pay, holiday pay and pension entitlement
In other words, entitlements are granted by the legal system, However, you were born with your Inalienable Rights.
Rights
The Declaration of Independence declares that "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" are the source of man's rights. The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government, and in no way depend on government for their existence. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this fact. These are known as absolute rights. Absolute rights belong to us due to the nature of our existence, are "unalienable" and "self-evident." http://www.foundingfathers.com/naturalrights.htm
That explains that...........

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987
Why It's Wrong to Teach Creationism in Public Schools http://ncse.com/taking-action/why-it...public-schools

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._religion.html
Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover, which showed that Intelligent Design is just creationism in a cheap tux, and teaching it violates the Establishment Clause.
But teaching it sure can get your rear in a lot of hot water.......

spoken like a true communist........

"I don't need my Rights and because I dont, neither do you"

Well, you've just shown us you don't have an advanced education, because you don't have a basic concept of what a Right is and what an entitlement is.
I'm saying you that have Rights, and you're saying no, you don't................I would think you are enjoying Free Speech, unless you are going to give it up and keep quiet

 

Spoken like a true fascist.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that a teacher won't get arrested for REFUSING TO TEACH KIDS CREATIONISM?
You're in such a hurry to contradict ALL statements of anyone you disagree with that you don't bother to actually read those statements. I'd expect more maturity from someone of your advanced years.
spoken like a true communist........

Actually, I do have an "advanced education" by normal standards. Do you believe you're entitled to the rights outlined in the constitution? If so, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Feel free to go back to ignoring me, you'll embarrass yourself less.

 

Rights equal facism? wow....
How can it be that Rights are not Rights? How are Rights contradictory? it is only your conviction that Rights are not Rights?
They are not granted through legislation. It is your birth right........ how can that possibly be a contradiction?
I've said it before, and the SCOTUS has rendered that they are inherent. You can choose to use them or not, but because they are individual in design and nature, you can choose for yourself, not for others.
The BoR are Individual, not collective...............now your saying that SCOTUS has violated your Entitlements by declaring that Rights apply to all Americans, Individually?

 

One is a human with individual rights.

The other is an inanimate object with no rights.

 

Only brainwashed nutters have prejudices against 'Blacks'. Everyone except the NRA wants the means of murder to be taken away from those same nutters. Obvious, really!

 

You're obviously in need of a nap.
None of your questions relates to what I said.
I did not say rights are contradictory.
I did not say rights are not rights.
I did not say that SCOTUS has violated entitlements by delcaring rights apply to individuals.

You're doing a very poor job of a strawman.

Now who's demonstrating a lack of education?

 

why sure you did.............you called Rights entitlements which you are glad to surrender for the good of the government
You do view Rights as Entitlements and that, is communism. And your calling me, a moderate, a commie? I'm not the one promoting Rights as Entitlements and that we can do without any of them, much less one of them.
You have even stated you are a socialist. That is just another word for communist.
You promote authoritarian rule in favor of self-governance. That is the socialist way................

 

You have demonstrated that you are a Republican. That is only another word for a McCarthyite freedom-hater.

 

No, I asked if you feel entitled to these rights.
I find it amusing that you consider yourself "moderate", given that every view you've expressed sounds like a quote from Rush Limbaugh.

I also find it funny that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism.

If I said I was a socialist, your attempts to flame bait by calling me a socialist would be kind of a waste of time, don't you think?

 

Plain and simple: White gun owners and those against gun control, are racists! It's only logical. The vast majority of gun owners have guns to defend and protect themselves from black home invaders, attacks and muggings by black men.

No one should be allowed to shoot someone in the name of self-defense or just for the sake of defending property. A life is far more precious than material goods. Rather than being quick-on-the-draw and trigger happy, gun owners should learn to negotiate and establish a friendly dialogue with their attackers.

Attackers take lives because the attackee puts up resistance and tries to defend himself. Attackees should not resist. Instead they should give the attacker whatever it wants and let the attacker be on its way. Then call 911.

And it's tiring to hear about what attackers who murder victims, owe to victim's families. It is wrong and unconstitutional to prosecute a young African-American gentleman just for the sake of revenge.

Thank you, and may you and yours have a pleasant and safe Independence Day.