PDA

View Full Version : Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights: Excellent Article


choprzrul
09-06-2011, 9:01 AM
From National Review Online:

The majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago shines a light on a dark period in American history.

An excellent read with an objective review of racist roots of gun control dating back to pre-civil war. It has probably been posted here in the past, but it is well worth revisiting as it has some very good material.

Full Article Here. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243405/gun-rights-are-civil-rights-robert-verbruggen?page=1)

.

yellowfin
09-06-2011, 9:16 AM
It goes WAY TOO easy on the anti gunners.

choprzrul
09-06-2011, 9:21 AM
It goes WAY TOO easy on the anti gunners.

I agree, with the caveat: from our point of view.

However, from the point of view of the masses of non gun owners out there that sit on the fence, it gives them an excellent history of gun control and some very good reasons to be AGAINST gun control. This is where we need to position ourselves. Give the masses enough information to make informed decisions on their own. Articles like this, with a foundation in history and supreme court decisions, will help swing public opinion to our side.

It's already on my FB page, now help spread the word.

.

yellowfin
09-06-2011, 9:43 AM
Why in the world was this put in?This does not show that modern gun controllers are racist, or even that the modern gun-control movement has “racist roots,” as some have suggested — the concerns that motivate Sarah Brady are neither the same as nor descended from the concerns that motivated racist southern governments. Uhm, bull****. They have EXACTLY the same motivations, inclinations, stereotypes, etc.

1. Their own political power.
2. Distaste for people whom they associate with gun ownership.
3. Moral superiority posturing and maintenance of their preferred social order.

Why is this somehow too hard to put in an article? Why indulge the lie that they really believe what they claim to?

viet4lifeOC
09-06-2011, 9:52 AM
Because it's good to know that various anti-gunners have differing motivatung factors and lumping them all as "racist" is unproductive.

Flopper
09-06-2011, 10:05 AM
Because it's good to know that various anti-gunners have differing motivatung factors and lumping them all as "racist" is unproductive.

So, what motivates you?

Btw, I ask because of your signature:

Limit 2A not for fear of the gun, but fear of the idiot welding it.

choprzrul
09-06-2011, 3:45 PM
Why in the world was this put in? Uhm, bull****. They have EXACTLY the same motivations, inclinations, stereotypes, etc.

1. Their own political power.
2. Distaste for people whom they associate with gun ownership.
3. Moral superiority posturing and maintenance of their preferred social order.

Why is this somehow too hard to put in an article? Why indulge the lie that they really believe what they claim to?

^^ I agree that the article's author dropped the ball ^^

Would you agree, though, that most of the material presented would provide a decent foundational read for they typical 'fence sitter'?

.

dantodd
09-06-2011, 3:54 PM
Interestingly that was published over a year ago. I don't remember it getting posted here though. Good read. Thanks.

dad
09-06-2011, 4:13 PM
But this does show that when a government has the ability to forbid gun ownership, it has the ability to render groups it dislikes helpless to defend themselves.
But whenever we discuss gun control, we need to remember that a government capable of gun control is capable of tyranny.

Those^two sentences caught my eye!

Tarn_Helm
09-06-2011, 4:50 PM
From National Review Online:



An excellent read with an objective review of racist roots of gun control dating back to pre-civil war. It has probably been posted here in the past, but it is well worth revisiting as it has some very good material.

Full Article Here. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243405/gun-rights-are-civil-rights-robert-verbruggen?page=1)

.

Even if this is a "dupe," thanks for reposting.

Their is no such thing as a "dupe" when it comes to discussing timeless issues of eternal relevance--especially when the topic is that of rights that are under constant attack from all sides.

With regard to certain topics, a good forum will not chastise you charges that you are posting a "dupe."

Because what is old news to some is new to many, many others.

Perhaps if a dupe is caught early enough, it can somehow simply be merged with a pre-existing thread.

So "dupe" or no "dupe," thanks.

BTW, the topics raised in this article dovetail nicely with the "collective vs. individual right" discussion in another thread in this subforum.

Good job.
:cheers2:

yellowfin
09-06-2011, 5:07 PM
^^ I agree that the article's author dropped the ball ^^

Would you agree, though, that most of the material presented would provide a decent foundational read for they typical 'fence sitter'?Completely agree on that, minus that it indulges the lie that the intentions of the gun control people are anything remotely close to truthful or honorable.

Blackhawk556
09-07-2011, 10:36 AM
Are we the only ones saying, "Gun rights are civil right"? Or does everyone else pretty much agree now? Are the antis saying,"yeah its a civil right but we still need 'Common sense' restrictions"?? Or are they just flat out saying "yeah what ever"

Patrick-2
09-07-2011, 11:02 AM
Not up for debate from a technical, legal standpoint. I think the term "civil right" tends to cause rise in some people and groups. OK.

To be absolutely clear, "Keeping and bearing arms for self defense is an individual, constitutionally enumerated, fundamental right."

yellowfin
09-07-2011, 11:06 AM
Not up for debate from a technical, legal standpoint. I think the term "civil right" tends to cause rise in some people and groups. OK. As it should because an individual, constitutionally enumerated, fundamental rightis the exact definition of a civil right. It should IMMEDIATELY "cause rise" because it should point out to them the utter hypocrisy of so many of the anti gun inclination so adamantly insisting that they're supporters of civil rights (which they imbue with racial connotation) while in fact being totally the opposite.

choprzrul
09-07-2011, 11:09 AM
Are we the only ones saying, "Gun rights are civil right"? Or does everyone else pretty much agree now? Are the antis saying,"yeah its a civil right but we still need 'Common sense' restrictions"?? Or are they just flat out saying "yeah what ever"

I do not believe that 'Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights' has even begun to scratch the surface of society's understanding. 95% of the population has been ingrained with the thought that 'guns are bad'. The small percentage that has been paying a bit of attention have yet to make the connection that the recent USSC decisions bring our 2A civil rights on par with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

This is why I believe that the message 'Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights', coupled with some history behind gun control, will significantly help raise public awareness and start changing opinions. No one wants to be seen as being against civil rights and they certainly don't want to support positions built upon racist motivations. This kicks the door wide open for us to come in and fill the vacuum with our message.

I am eagerly awaiting the day when the news crew grabs the 'man on the street' and starts asking questions about crime, guns, and the need for more laws; and the 'man on the street' shrugs and says 'Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights'.

At that point, we will know that we have won.

.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-08-2011, 7:02 AM
Even if this is a "dupe," thanks for reposting.

Their is no such thing as a "dupe" when it comes to discussing timeless issues of eternal relevance--especially when the topic is that of rights that are under constant attack from all sides.

With regard to certain topics, a good forum will not chastise you charges that you are posting a "dupe."

Because what is old news to some is new to many, many others.

Perhaps if a dupe is caught early enough, it can somehow simply be merged with a pre-existing thread.

So "dupe" or no "dupe," thanks.

BTW, the topics raised in this article dovetail nicely with the "collective vs. individual right" discussion in another thread in this subforum.

Good job.
:cheers2:


This isn't (as far as I can recall) a dupe. Which brings the question: How on earth did all of us miss this excellent article??????


The Raisuli

choprzrul
09-08-2011, 4:43 PM
This isn't (as far as I can recall) a dupe. Which brings the question: How on earth did all of us miss this excellent article??????


The Raisuli

I can't even remember how I found it, but I am going to claim some spectacular Google-Fu!

.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-09-2011, 7:15 AM
I can't even remember how I found it, but I am going to claim some spectacular Google-Fu!

.


And rightly so!


The Raisuli

donw
09-09-2011, 7:27 AM
But this does show that when a government has the ability to forbid gun ownership, it has the ability to render groups it dislikes helpless to defend themselves.
But whenever we discuss gun control, we need to remember that a government capable of gun control is capable of tyranny.

Those^two sentences caught my eye!

the absolute truth!

we live in an era where the government is rapidly spinning out of control...especially here in California...the legislature has a long history of trampling on the constitution when it comes to civil rights especially when it comes to the 2A. :(