“I know something of the history of this [Florida victim-disarmament] legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. We have no statistics available, but it is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5% of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention to the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.” —Justice Buford’s concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone, Florida, 1941; to find out more about Watson v. Stone, go to the website of Court Listener (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3400663/watson-v-stone/) and click on the Lead Opinion, Concurrence, and Dissent tabs under “Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1941).”
Victim Disarmament, at Its Very Core, Disempowers the Minority
The history of victim-disarmament is one of racism. And, while early “gun control” measures were passed with the obvious intention of never applying them to whites, but only to blacks (per Justice Buford’s concurring opinion, in Watson v. Stone), it was still true for the state of California, in 1986, (http://www.crimefree.co.za/Role-players/Criminologist/Kopel/RTC-history.htm) that “the state legislature’s research arm—hardly a nest of pro-gunners—has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California [were] issued to white males.”
As Clayton E. Cramer (https://firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html) has written, “In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.” It has always been the racist policies of the Left that have sought the disarmament of blacks. Constitutional conservatives have never supported such an agenda, choosing instead to stand with Dr. Martin Luther King and his crusade for Equal Protection and Equal Justice under the law. It was Republicans in the Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in higher percentages than so-called “liberal” Democrats, at the time (https://eaglerising.com/8314/true-stripes-racist-democrats-colorblind-republicans/), with 80% of Republican voting to enact the law, while only 65% of Democrats supported it. And the one in five Republicans who voted against the act reported doing so only because they thought that the wording of the law, allowing it to be applied to private institutions, was a case of federal overreach. Democrat US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for and leader of the Ku Klux Klan, personally filibustered the act, but it passed anyway. Civil rights include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, a right which Democrat policies have denied blacks for decades.
As Carol Swain, a black political science professor at Vanderbilt University, likes to point out, it is the left-leaning Democrat Party (https://www.prageru.com/videos/inconvenient-truth-about-democratic-party) that has been the main obstacle to black Americans’ attainment of civil liberties throughout American history. Democrat jurists ruled in favor of Dred Scott; Democrat secessionists withdrew from the Union and prosecuted the Civil War to keep slavery; and Democrat politicians organized the Ku Klux Klan and passed Jim Crow laws to keep blacks as powerless as possible. While the Second Amendment was typically honored for white Americans, it was not extended to black Americans: indeed, blacks were the prime targets of victim disarmament. Even such a great American as Dr. Martin Luther King was not immune. According to World News Daily (http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/what-most-dont-know-about-mlk-jr-and-his-guns/), Dr. Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, has explained it this way: “Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family.”
Condoleezza’s Second Amendment: How the Second Amendment Kept Her Family Safe
Dr. Condoleezza Rice reports the following facts about her Alabama childhood (starting at the 3 min, 9 sec, mark, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8WtE70LA2Q&t=276s): “I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late ’50s, early ’60s. There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham Police were gonna protect you. And so, when white night-riders would come through our neighborhood, my father and his friends would take their guns and they would go to the head of the neighborhood—there was a little cul-de-sac—and they would fire in the air if anybody came through. I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody, but they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor knew where those guns were, he would have rounded them up. And so I don’t favor some things, like gun registration.”
Star Parker Speaks Her Truth about the New Plantation
Today’s infringers of the Second Amendment are still at it, promoting policies of victim disarmament that discriminate primarily against blacks and other minorities. When high taxes are placed on gun sales (https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/guns-bullets-taxes-gun-control-tool-089782), the tax is more easily paid by members of the middle or upper classes. Since blacks and other minority groups are disproportionately poor—having been economically disabled by a racist welfare state that targets blacks to keep them in generational poverty—it is blacks and other minorities that are most discriminated against, with regard to their gun rights, by a high tax on firearms.
Contemporary promoters of race-based politics have utilized a strategy of crippling black communities by incentivizing dependence on easy-money welfare programs, rather than encouraging the hard work that would increase wealth within those communities. These race-based power brokers have—according to Star Parker, a black ex-welfare mother and political activist—institutionalized poverty among blacks and other minorities, to create a “new plantation” to keep minorities poor and hungry for big-government handouts and freedom-killing socialism. Parker has written Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What You Can Do About It (https://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantation-Government-Enslaves/dp/1595552235#reader_1595552235).
Other forms of victim disarmament, such as the overregulation of gun stores to the point of running them out of business, also tend to hit black and minority communities hardest, since middle-class wage earners can move into gated communities with armed security—in essence, paying others to carry the guns for them—while minorities are left to live in less expensive areas that are much softer targets for crime. Many of these areas are left wide-open for criminals, due to the absence of police and the disarmed status of community members.
So, if a lack of policing is at issue in minority communities, why would people living in those areas be willing to give up their Second Amendment right to protect themselves in the face of neglect with respect to their parts of town? And, if it is the case that the police have no legal duty to protect citizens (https://eaglerising.com/51423/the-second-amendment-is-needed-for-the-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-the-people/), then why trust the police to consistently serve and protect minorities—or any community, for that matter—especially in light of the fact that four Broward County deputies recently used their legal discretionary immunity not to protect students from the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/23/report-four-sheriff-scott-israels-deputies-waited-outside-douglas-high-school-shooting/). The now-infamous Cowards of Broward clearly illustrate the need for an increase—as opposed to a decrease—in the utilization of the Second Amendment by the citizenry.
According to Clayton E. Cramer (https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html), “Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that ‘they’ were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.”
Indeed, there are naïve people today who say, “The origins of gun control may be racist, but racism no longer really plays a role anymore.” But is it not true that the places where the largest numbers of minorities live are the same places where victim-disarmament policies are doing the most dramatic harm? The answer is yes, the big cities are the hardest places to obtain guns for self-defense: New York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and Chicago, for example. These are the places with the highest crime rates, and most of these places are run by Leftists who refuse their high-minority populations the right to defend themselves. According to the standards of most black civil rights groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), this is nothing less than institutionalized racism (https://amherstnaacp.blogspot.com/2014/04/racism-and-awareness.html): “It’s not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.” Even minority government clerks are, themselves, forced to deny concealed-carry permits to fellow minorities, thereby discriminating against those having to face off with better-armed criminals—many of whom are racist, delighting in their victimizations of easy prey.
Diamond & Silk Redux
When it comes to black people speaking out on the topic of gun rights, the Leftists of Facebook have acted to restrain Diamond and Silk from speaking their minds after remarks the duo made regarding the Second Amendment. The two black women made this statement on Twitter (http://truthfeednews.com/diamond-silk-just-threw-down-the-gauntlet-to-anti-gun-protesters/): “We will not allow anyone to use their First Amendment rights to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights.” The two Second Amendment supporters went on to remind Americans of the following facts: “We can change laws all day, but keep in mind: criminals don’t check laws before they commit crimes. If you don’t like guns, then don’t buy one, but leave our rights alone!” Here is the statement Diamond and Silk released regarding the censoring of their account by Facebook (https://clashdaily.com/2018/04/diamond-silk-videos-banned-facebook-heres/): “Diamond And Silk have been corresponding since September 7, 2017, with Facebook (owned by Mark Zuckerberg), about their bias censorship and discrimination against D&S brand page. Finally after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies, and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receive notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: ‘The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.’ Yep, this was FB conclusion after 6 Months, 29 days, 5 hrs, 40 minutes and 43 seconds. Oh and guess what else Facebook said: ‘This decision is final and it is not appealable in any way.’ (Note: This is the exact wording that FB emailed to us.)”
Conservative Blacks Are Working to Protect All of Us
Of course, it is conservatives who have universally welcomed the views of Diamond and Silk, not Leftist progressives, giving the lie to the Leftist propaganda that there is widespread racism among conservatives. For the Left to take a liking to a black person, he or she must be willing to serve as a slave to the Left. Freedom-loving black people, such as Diamond and Silk and Dr. Ben Carson, are not tremendously popular on the Left, for—just like Condoleezza Rice—they are people who support the US Constitution and the right of the people to bear arms, whether those people be rich, middle-income, or poor; older, middle-aged, or young; black, brown, or white.
Perhaps it is fitting that one of the Second Amendment’s strongest public proponents comes from the very community that has historically been targeted with the cancelation of the civil right it protects. Ben Carson, a strong defender of the Second Amendment, has written (https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-hunter/ben-carson-i-never-saw-body-bullet-holes-was-more-devastating-taking-away-2nd), “I grew up in the slums of Detroit. I saw plenty of gun violence as a child. Both of my cousins were killed on the streets. As a Doctor, I spent many a night pulling bullets out of bodies. There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking—but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away. Serious people seek serious solutions. The Left would prefer to use these tragedies to advance a political agenda. To me, that is also devastatingly sad. The Left would have you believe that a man that asked Christians to stand up (and then executed them one by one [which happened at Umpqua Community College, in Roseburg, Oregon]) would obey ‘new gun laws’. That kind of logic explains many of the problems we find ourselves in today.” The Left, it seems, will forever be trying to disarm Americans, a tradition with its origins strongly cemented in the Left’s past; and Constitutionalists will always have to fight back against these would-be deniers of human rights, in order to maintain freedom in America: freedom from the police state, freedom from criminal assailants, freedom from the racist policies of the Left.
And so it goes. . . .
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com