PDA

View Full Version : Violence Policy Center: Reinstate the Black Codes?


7x57
02-01-2010, 4:04 PM
This article (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/violence-policy-center-reinstate-the-black-codes/) appeared on a news outlet no doubt too right-wing for some of you:


Violence Policy Center: Reinstate the Black Codes?

Whatever the VPC's intent may be, the gun control group indirectly concludes that black communities must be disarmed.

February 1, 2010 - by Bob Owens


The Violence Policy Center (VPC) — the anti-gun rights group that Barack Obama repeatedly voted to fund while he was a director of the Joyce Foundation — believes that African-Americans are too violent to deserve the entire Constitution. Thus, it wants to reduce their access to firearms. From the Violence Policy Center’s latest report:

Blacks in the United States are disproportionately affected by homicide. For the year 2007, blacks represented 13 percent of the nation’s population, yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims.

As noted at the beginning of this study, the devastation homicide inflicts on black teens and adults is a national crisis, yet it is all too often ignored outside of affected communities.

For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns — usually handguns — are far and away the number one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.

For an organization to make a public declaration that suggests an entire race be denied the same level of constitutional protections as others is both shocking and bewildering. The study received financing from left-wing groups dedicated to social engineering, including the David Bohnett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Public Welfare Foundation.

While progressive groups such as these typically have a stated goal of helping underprivileged minority communities, some of their attempts to affect what they view as positive social change can be viewed by critics as ham-handed and condescending — or, as in this instance, verging on outright racist.

The VPC and the left-wing foundations that bankroll it have decided that black-on-black crime is unacceptably high, and they believe the best way to handle that is to make it more difficult for African-Americans to legally obtain handguns.

The VPC refuses to even touch on the cultural issues that are the most significant variable in the massive discrepancy between the rate of black homicide victims (20.86 per 100,000) and white homicide victims (3.11 per 100,000). The VPC also won’t acknowledge that the vast majority of African-American homicide victims are murdered by young African-American men. Identifying, targeting, and removing the cultural factors that most specifically contribute to this problem would seem to be the most responsible way to decrease the excessive violence rates, but the VPC’s goal clearly isn’t problem resolution.

Calls to limit the access of African-Americans to firearms specifically echo the “black codes” adopted immediately at the end of the Civil War. These laws were passed in southern states in response to the Thirteenth Amendment’s outlawing of slavery, and were specifically engineered to circumscribe the civil rights and liberties of newly freed slaves and freemen. The codes assured the second-class status of African-Americans, and were a forerunner to decades of “separate but equal” segregation under Jim Crow laws — which were only overcome during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Among the codes commonly passed were laws that forbid or restricted the ownership of firearms by African-Americans. The codes were “justified” with the explanation that African-Americans did not have the same rights as white citizens.

The Ku Klux Klan and similar groups were active in attempting to disarm blacks in the post-war South, and United States v. Cruikshank gave paramilitary racist mobs carte blanche to disarm African-American communities. This left them nearly defenseless to decades of lynchings, assaults, indignity, and, in several dozen instances, full-fledged “race riots” that are more accurately described as massacres. Most of these rampages occurred with the full knowledge of local and state governments. The 1898 Wilmington race riot was carried out with the full knowledge and indifference of both North Carolina Governor Daniel Lindsay Russell and President William McKinley.

One can only hope that Josh Sugarman, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, is completely ignorant of the many mob actions and the thousands of deaths that resulted from laws that stripped African-Americans of their rights and liberties. Considering his long-running and strident anti-gun advocacy, it seems likely that Sugarman and the organization are well aware of history but made a political calculation in asking that African-Americans be disarmed.

The goal of the Violence Policy Center in this report is the goal of the group in every report it has ever issued: an erosion of gun rights for all Americans, with the ultimate goal being the prohibition of all firearms save those under state control. Towards that totalitarian end, the VPC does not seem to have any qualms about advocating a return to racist policies that left African-American communities helpless targets for most of a century. Nor does Sugarman or his group explain how disarming law-abiding blacks will make them anything other than victims for those that refuse to follow existing prohibitions against murder.

The David Bohnett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Public Welfare Foundation were all contacted this week by Pajamas Media and asked whether or not they stood behind the Violence Policy Center’s call to limit the rights and liberties of African-Americans.

Not one of these organizations has responded with a condemnation of the VPC’s conclusions.


What I find especially interesting is the willingness to include some details about what the 14th amendment was supposed to do and how it was taken away.

7x57

BKinzey
02-01-2010, 4:24 PM
Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.


They can claim they mean everyone's access to firearms. Which I think they do. I also don't see where the writer asked the VPC for a clarification of that statement.

Glock22Fan
02-01-2010, 5:24 PM
They can claim they mean everyone's access to firearms. Which I think they do. I also don't see where the writer asked the VPC for a clarification of that statement.

That's how I read it too.

yellowfin
02-01-2010, 5:57 PM
Good to see the VPC called out for what they are. Will the article be made sufficiently public?

jrannis
02-01-2010, 6:08 PM
Wow,
pajamasmedia.com

Now that right there is what ya call a fine news outlet. lol

loather
02-01-2010, 7:01 PM
They can claim they mean everyone's access to firearms. Which I think they do. I also don't see where the writer asked the VPC for a clarification of that statement.

Indeed while they may inherently believe everyone's access to firearms should be curtailed, it outright sickens and infuriates me to read drivel such as this. What other inference could be drawn from reading those words? While the author of the article undoubtedly read too much into the wording, the VPC either out of stupidity or outright malice (in this case I'm not sure Hanlon's Razor (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity) applies) definitely implies that disarming the black community will make it safer. Those of us who infer the correct (that is, disarming everyone) meaning from the implication surely cannot overlook the fact that most will pick up on the (intended?) racist inference.

Infuriating.

7x57
02-01-2010, 8:05 PM
I don't have the link at hand right now, but whatever VPC meant preferential disarming has definitely been attempted because I read a story about a black politician who wanted his entire, predominantly black district to be a gun-free zone, or something of the kind.

If you believe that inanimate objects is the problem, and certainly not a right of any kind, the logic makes sense, so the VPC could I think get away with openly advocating race-based disarmament as far as the guardians of culture are concerned.

OTOH, if Gura is successful, we can only dream of them being stupid enough to try it. :43:

7x57

dantodd
02-01-2010, 8:19 PM
Obviously the guns are racist and prefer to kill in the hands of black people. It isn't the VPC's fault it's the guns' fault.

Anothercoilgun
02-01-2010, 8:29 PM
Simple bill of attainder. Denied. Case close. Next.

7x57
02-01-2010, 8:55 PM
Simple bill of attainder. Denied. Case close. Next.

You're not writing the bill correctly. Two words: "Sensitive places."

After all, if all of DC can be one massive sensitive place, what's an ethnic neighborhood here and there? :eek:

7x57

MSO4MATT
02-01-2010, 9:10 PM
It amazes me the lack of historical knowledge this policy reflects. But that's the problem with progressives. They always think that society perfection is just one more ban, restriction or government program away, without regard for the mounting failures of the past!

pitchbaby
02-01-2010, 9:14 PM
It certainly does seem that way Matt!

yellowfin
02-01-2010, 9:31 PM
Matt, the major flaw with that interpretation is the assumption that they actually want things to be better. Most often they don't at all.

N6ATF
02-01-2010, 11:27 PM
What's worse? Racism, or pushing genocide of all the law-abiding?

GrizzlyGuy
02-02-2010, 6:41 AM
The entire article is based on a false premise. Here is the relevant part of the actual conclusion in VPC's study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide10.pdf):

For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns—usually handguns—are far and away the number one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.

The conclusion doesn't say to reduce THEIR access to firearms, it says to reduce everyone's access to firearms.

7x57
02-02-2010, 6:59 AM
I think some people are not seeing the forest. The major interest (to me) in the story is the discussion of Cruikshank in a non-gun news outlet, not whatever VPC's agenda is. We know that the agenda is "ban guns by any means necessary"--precisely how they thought it expedient to leverage race to that end is simply a matter of strategy.

Instead, consider that we have an author discussing the fact that modern gun control in the states is largely based on the same laws that created the legal foundation for segregation. *That* is a message we want out there, because it directly undermines the credibility of the entire notion. It plays the race card on our side, if you will, but the differences is (1) it is a matter of historical fact, and (2) it is inherently disruptive to their world view.

Same reason Mr. McDonald is such a fine representative for us in the Chicago case. It's hard to dismiss all that as in the past when the mere presence of the lead plaintiff says "this law didn't merely bind the arms of the freed slaves so they could be victimized with impunity. It renders me helpless as well. Will this court find in favor of segregation law that is still victimizing the <insert a laundry list of liberal protected classes here> this very day?

7x57

GrizzlyGuy
02-02-2010, 4:04 PM
Instead, consider that we have an author discussing the fact that modern gun control in the states is largely based on the same laws that created the legal foundation for segregation. *That* is a message we want out there, because it directly undermines the credibility of the entire notion. It plays the race card on our side, if you will, but the differences is (1) it is a matter of historical fact, and (2) it is inherently disruptive to their world view.

JPFO makes that point in it's outstanding 'No Guns for Negroes' documentary:

No Guns for Negroes (Part One) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU)

No Guns for Negroes (Part Two) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA)

Here is the home site (http://nogunsfornegroes.net/) for it, and the PDF available from there explains their mission (sounds like the mission you propose). :)

yellowfin
02-02-2010, 4:15 PM
I think some people are not seeing the forest. The major interest (to me) in the story is the discussion of Cruikshank in a non-gun news outlet, not whatever VPC's agenda is. We know that the agenda is "ban guns by any means necessary"--precisely how they thought it expedient to leverage race to that end is simply a matter of strategy.

Instead, consider that we have an author discussing the fact that modern gun control in the states is largely based on the same laws that created the legal foundation for segregation. *That* is a message we want out there, because it directly undermines the credibility of the entire notion. It plays the race card on our side, if you will, but the differences is (1) it is a matter of historical fact, and (2) it is inherently disruptive to their world view.Why has this been so slow to come by?

MSO4MATT
02-02-2010, 10:44 PM
Matt, the major flaw with that interpretation is the assumption that they actually want things to be better. Most often they don't at all.

That is true, those ultra progressives want 2 classes, the powerful and the powerless to who they will then control and confiscate their wealth or liberty for there own good. Other progressives are compassionate people who yearn for the state to sooth their every emotional reaction that normally occurs from living in the real world. Both progressive camp philosophies ultimately result in a nasty divorce between you and your liberty.