By now you must have heard or read this quote:
So I am going to steal from Clayton Cramer’s The Racist Roots of Gun Control and share with you some extracts.
Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to “shoot to kill.”
-Thomas N. Ingersoll, “Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans, 1718-1812”,That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.
-North Caroline statute 1840I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions.
-Justice Wanamaker, Ohio Supreme Court 1920I know something of the history of this 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.
– Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford in Watson v. Stone (1941)
And they also had a complicit media, just like today:
You se, back in the day lynchings were a thing and guns prevented the proper execution of extra legal executions.
A Negro with a gun scares the shit out of Democrats. Never forget that.
And Indians too.
By the way, women were also considered unfit for gun ownership:
Sorry, this post got too long. It was not my intention. But POTUS’ (Pederast of The United States) words are fighting lying words that could not go unchallenged.
Well republicans ain’t much better Reagan as governor of Cali signed legislation to disarm the Black Panthers. Then as President signed the Hughes amendment. Bush 1 was just as bad and Bush 2 saying he would sign the Assault weapons ban if it came across his desk. Very few politicians like the second because it places a curb on their power
True, by a broad brush. But if you look more closely, Democrats pretty much universally want to disarm you, while among Republicans that desire is far less common and may not even be the majority view.
Also, victim disarmament is the official policy of the Democratic party, while protection of the right to keep and bear arms is that of the Republicans. Policy and platform may not precisely translate into actions and legislation, but they at least offer an indication as to what they want to do to you.
That last clip about women wasn’t a good example. When you read the whole clip it becomes obvious the congresswoman who was saying “disarm women” was being facetious.
She was decrying other women calling for disarmament by basically saying to them “you first”.
The headline and subhead did not accurately reflect her point.
So maybe the media hasn’t changed all that much over the years after all.