PDA

View Full Version : Racist History of Handgun Bans in America


orchidhunter
April 16, 2009, 05:36 PM
In the United States, the first efforts to prevent the ownership of firearms, in particular, handguns, were aimed at Blacks. The French Black Code (1751) required Louisiana colonists to stop and, "if necessary," beat "any black carrying any potential weapon. . . ." After Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831, the Virginia legislature made it illegal for free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead." In 1834, Tennessee revised Article XI, Section 26 of its Constitution to read "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense," inserting the words "free white men" to replace "freemen," whose rights were protected when the Constitution was ratified in 1796. (Clayton E. Cramer, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control," Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, Winter 1995.)

Mass production techniques lowered the cost of many products, including firearms. After the Civil War, gun prices fell within the budgets of average citizens, including former slaves who, having been freed, were entitled to exercise the right to arms, long considered one of the features distinguishing citizenship from servitude. The Supreme Court had ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford (19 How. 393, 1857), "It (citizenship) would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased. . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

To prevent Blacks from arming themselves, southern states enacted the Black Codes, which "fixed the black population in serfdom, denying all political rights, excluding them from virtually any chance at economic or social advancement -- and, of course, forbidding them to own arms." (Don B. Kates, Jr., "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States," Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Don B. Kates, Jr., Ed., North River Press, Inc, 1979.)

After ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868) and enactment of the Civil Rights Act (1875), several states responded by passing laws which on their face were race-neutral, but which in effect were not. Attorney Robert Dowlut observed, "It does not matter that a law on its face applies to all. A law will be deemed unconstitutional if the 'the reality is that the law's impact falls on the minority.'" ("Bearing Arms in State Bills of Rights, Judicial Interpretation, and Public Housing," St. Thomas Law Review, Vol. 5, Fall 1992.)

Among these laws, the forerunners of so-called "Saturday Night Special" legislation, was Tennessee's "Army and Navy" law (1879), which prohibited the sale of any "belt or pocket pistols, or revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or navy pistol" models, among the most expensive, and largest, handguns of the day. (Such as the Colt Model 1960 Army, Model 1851 Navy, and Model 1861 Navy percussion cap revolvers, or Model 1873 Single-Action Army revolver.) The law thus prohibited small two-shot derringers and low-caliber rimfire revolvers, the handguns that most Blacks could afford.

20th Century Anti-Handgun Efforts in the U.S.

In 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Law, which to this day requires a person to obtain a license, issued at the discretion of police officials, to possess a handgun. The law was aimed at preventing handgun ownership by Italians and Irish immigrants of the period, then considered untrustworthy by New York legislators and police chiefs with different bloodlines. The National Firearms Act (1934), as originally proposed, would have required registration of handguns.

In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act, ostensibly in reaction to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. But even supporters of "gun control" have recognized another purpose to the law. Robert Sherrill wrote, "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.... Inasmuch as the legislation finally passed in 1968 had nothing to do with the guns used in the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, it seems reasonable to assume that the law was directed at that other threat of the 1960s, more omnipresent than the political assassin -- namely, the black rioter....With the horrendous rioting of 1967 and 1968, Congress again was panicked toward passing some law that would shut off weapons access to blacks." (The Saturday Night Special, 1973.) B. Bruce-Briggs similarly noted, "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday night special' is emphasized because it is cheap and is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence -- the reference is to 'n-----town Saturday Night.'" ("The Great American Gun War," The Public Interest, Fall 1976.)

More recently, anti-handgun efforts have included laws or legislative proposals for registration, licensing, limits on the frequency of purchases, limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines, bans on both small handguns ("Saturday Night Specials") and large handguns ("assault pistols"), and requirements that handguns (except those of the police) either be externally locked (rendering them useless for protection) or manufactured with non-existent internal devices to prevent the handgun from being used by anyone other than its rightful owner.

Conspicuously, the race-oriented history of "gun control" laws has escaped the attention of many in the civil rights community. Legal scholars Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond have written, "The history of blacks, firearms regulations, and the right to bear arms should cause us to ask new questions regarding the Second Amendment. . . . Perhaps a re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil right. orchidhunter

hogdogs
April 16, 2009, 05:49 PM
We used to not allow voting by woman and blacks... Also could beat yer woman just to keep her in line at point in time...
Glad it ain't like that anymore!
IBTL
Brent

homefires
April 16, 2009, 05:51 PM
Good God! They still Have Slaves in Samelia Too! So what is your point?

Yellowfin
April 16, 2009, 06:07 PM
Let's not forget the Mulford Act in California passed in 1967.

Jofaba
April 16, 2009, 06:37 PM
Good God! They still Have Slaves in Samelia Too! So what is your point?

education?

IBTL

I know nothing about this, and have zero input. From what I read, it's a thinker and not sure what would cause a lock. If it's all wrong, then I understand.

hogdogs
April 16, 2009, 08:17 PM
The reason for the lock is that we all agree that racism was a part of early America but it is now a part of history and we have moved ahead of that ignorance as a nation.
Brent

MrNiceGuy
April 16, 2009, 08:30 PM
Many laws were instituted solely because of racism and were continued to save face in the wake of frivolous and falsified propaganda. This applies to areas like the criminalization of marijuana.

Many laws were instituted solely because of racism yet continue for everyone for the well being of the citizens. I believe this is closer to the situation with gun control.

The government needs to be careful when they take away rights. Doing so usually accomplishes nothing but criminalizing large portions of the population.

After the smashing success of prohibition, the government turned it's efforts to the war on drugs.... and since that is going so darned well... they figured, "hey, lets take guns away too"

sam1chlt
April 16, 2009, 08:36 PM
I thought it was taboo to bring subjects like this up on the forum.. I guess it is OK for some and not for others.....racism??

Pinky Carruthers
April 16, 2009, 08:56 PM
I thought it was common knowledge to anyone involved in 2nd Amendment issues that the origin of gun control laws was based on race. Am I mistaken?

ltdave
April 16, 2009, 09:26 PM
372 PA 1927 Michigan Compiled Laws...

this relates to purchasing and possessing handguns...

its all about Dr Ossian Sweet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet

Wildalaska
April 16, 2009, 10:43 PM
In 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Law, which to this day requires a person to obtain a license, issued at the discretion of police officials, to possess a handgun. The law was aimed at preventing handgun ownership by Italians and Irish immigrants of the period, then considered untrustworthy by New York legislators and police chiefs with different bloodlines.

I can see that whoever wrote that knows very little about the Sullivan law:rolleyes:

WildsullivanAlaska TM

SIGSHR
April 16, 2009, 11:00 PM
In his Message to Congress urging passage of the Ku Klux Acts, President Granted noted that among the Klan's many crimes was that "they have conspired to deny Negro citizens the right to own and bear arms."

Double Naught Spy
April 16, 2009, 11:39 PM
Holy cow, not this stuff again!
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/search.php?searchid=3224926

By golly, the founding of the United States involved racism! Manifest destiny was racist! So what of it? It is ancient history.


By the way orchidhunter, nice research. You signed your name to the bottom like it is yours, but it isn't. You "borrowed" it from the NRA. The copyright says it may be reproduced, but the expect it to be reproduced with proper credit given to the source.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=137&issue=020

The document you borrowed has been around for at least 6 years, for crying out loud, and even then, the information isn't new.

What is even more troubling is that the opening sentence of the document is apparently WRONG! At least according to this site...http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

The NRA's opening line borrowed by orchidhunter reads...
In the United States, the first efforts to prevent the ownership of firearms, in particular, handguns, were aimed at Blacks. The French Black Code (1751) required Louisiana colonists to stop and, "if necessary," beat "any black carrying any potential weapon. . . ."

Apparently several laws preceded the 1751 laws.

1640 Virginia Race-based total gun and self-defense ban.
"Prohibiting negroes, slave and free, from carrying
weapons including clubs." (The Los Angeles Times, "To
Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control," January
19, 1992)

1640 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. "That all such free
Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians...shall appear without
arms." [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of
all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of
the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W.W. Henning
ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

1712 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. "An Act for Preventing
Negroes Insurrections." (Henning, p. 481) (GMU CR LJ,
p. 70)

1712 South Carolina Race-based total gun ban. "An act for the better
ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves." [7
Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D.J.
McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

maestro pistolero
April 17, 2009, 05:07 AM
Why would this be locked? It's gun related, and some would argue, relevant today. Areas with the most restrictive guns laws are often areas with a high African American population.

I think this may be the elephant in the living room in Washington D.C.

chemgirlie
April 17, 2009, 05:37 AM
One could argue that may issue laws all have the potential to be used selectively for or against a particular race. If you live in a may issue state and your local sheriff disapproves of the amount of melanin you have, you could be out of your right to carry because of your color, and it wold be totally legal.

Double Naught Spy
April 17, 2009, 07:27 AM
Why would this be locked? It's gun related, and some would argue, relevant today. Areas with the most restrictive guns laws are often areas with a high African American population.

I think this may be the elephant in the living room in Washington D.C.

You would need to show cause and effect. Even then the current gun laws are not specifically racist. chemgirlie points out some "may issue" sorts of situations where personal bias may come into play that may be racist, but it also may be sexist, classist, or just plain personal. However, the law itself isn't racist.

As for areas with high African American populations often being areas with the most restrictive gun laws, no, not really. That would put the South in league with the most restrictive gun laws and that isn't happening. Illinois has some awfully restrictive gun laws but only about 17% African American population whereas Alabama has more like 27% and much less restrictive gun laws. Georgia has 30% African Americans and less gun laws and Mississippi has more than double the percentage at Illinois at 37%, but less gun laws.

DC is a particularly unique case that happens to house the seat of government. To blame its laws on race alone would be stretching inference beyond the data.

hogdogs
April 17, 2009, 07:38 AM
The areas of most gun control tend to be big cities that allowed their criminals to run a muck until honest folks get tired of it. Some of those honest folks got harder to be victimized while other citizens sided with the politicians and aided the passing of measures that did nothing more than prevent legal upstanding folks from safely arming them selves... I bet the vast majority of folks who abide by gun laws are WHITE so the white race is being discriminated against!
Brent

#18indycolts
April 17, 2009, 07:52 AM
In the United States, the first efforts to prevent the ownership of firearms, in particular, handguns, were aimed at Blacks.

That really shouldn't be too surprising considering what this country was founded upon. Racism, tyranny, genocide and class warfare.

orchidhunter
April 17, 2009, 08:50 AM
Double Naught Spy, The only thing the NRA "expects" of me, is my dues. Give some thought as to why they don't ask that credit be given to them. orchidhunter

Al Norris
April 17, 2009, 09:35 AM
That really shouldn't be too surprising considering what this country was founded upon. Racism, tyranny, genocide and class warfare.

#18indycolts, if that's your reading of the history of this country, I pity you.

As a politically active gun owner, I sure don't want you, or anyone with those views, on my side.

Wildalaska
April 17, 2009, 10:30 AM
#18indycolts, if that's your reading of the history of this country, I pity you.

Well Al, if you take out the tyranny and class warfare arguments he does have a point, albiet overstated...where would we be without rascism and genocide, historically apropos as it was...;)

Wildremember...thewestwaspittsburgAlaska TM

#18indycolts
April 17, 2009, 10:36 AM
Anti- sorry if you don't feel that way, but I think I hit the nail directly on the head. This country was built on greed (taking land by force, the enslavement of a people and the ruling elite keeping the rest of the population in check. It all started with the not-so-good of a guy Chris Columbus. I'm not trying to argue here, just stating the facts of what our core principles were and are.

a7mmnut
April 17, 2009, 10:42 AM
Yeah, this is really old stuff that was in print for years and years. Do we really need it THIS year?:confused: How about "reverse descrimination influences gun sales nationwide"? With all the minority gangs toting around busloads of illegal guns, how can digging up old articles for inflammatory use be of any importance to an Obamanation? -7-

Mike Irwin
April 17, 2009, 11:17 AM
Keep your emotions in check, people.

Yes, this subject has been discussed before.

But just because it's been discussed once or twice or whatever DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE, EVERY NEW MEMBER, EVERY NEW ADVOCATE OF THE SHOOTING SPORTS, EVERY NEW GUNOWNER, IS FAMILIAR WITH IT!

So, I'll issue this warning:

If all you have to "contribute" to this discussion is a mini-screed questioning the motives of the original poster, bitching about the tenancy of the post, or anything else, STAY OUT OF IT.

Do I make myself clear?

Any more messages that consist of nothing by "WAAH! WAAH! WE KNOW THIS! will be summarily deleted and the poster will be dealt with accordingly.

To sum it up?

STOP YOUR DAMNED THREAD CRAPPING!

sholling
April 17, 2009, 11:23 AM
This discussion is still valid today. Many states instituted may-issue CCW laws precisely to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. That's still used today to restrict CCWs to the political and economic elite. Those origins need to be well known and discussed precisely so that we can rub the antis noses in their racist and elitist goals.

44 AMP
April 17, 2009, 01:24 PM
A casual look at world history will show few, if any nations that were not founded with (not ON) those principals being used.

No nation, no people in history, do not have someone that they have not treated as well as they might. The concept that people who are weaker than you should be treated fairly, because they are people the same as you and I, is fairly recent in world history, and far from widespread, even today.

The concept that "might makes right" is as old as mankind. And is still in use in much of the world today.

I think that it is important to know where we came from, to better understand where we are, and where we are going. But we should not automatically ascribe the injustices of the past to the present.

All of us did things as children that we later came to understand were wrong, and most of us feel a degree of shame for those things, and for not knowing better. So it is with nations.

The greatest achievement of our nation is not what we have done wrong, but what we have done right, and the fact that we can recognise the difference. And that we constantly strive to improve.

We have taken many false steps in the past. We will take many in the future. Sometimes we step in it. And it stinks. When the smell finially gets to our noses, we wipe our shoes and step onward.

Not everything in our past was good and right. Not everything was evil and wrong. How we got here matters. What matters more is where we go from here.

HarrySchell
April 17, 2009, 03:26 PM
There was a sort of carry permits by zip code in Los Angeles County (CA) that showed Beverly Hills and other such places to have the vast bulk of permits.

A sort of violent crime by zip code produced an inverse pattern.

A sort by race by zip code showed a pattern closer to the crime pattern than the distribution of carry permits.

I lost the cite, dullard that I am, but clearly the "may issue" power is being abused here.

Dragon55
April 17, 2009, 03:40 PM
well said

Double Naught Spy
April 17, 2009, 03:51 PM
Okay orchidhunter, you still haven't explained the reason why you are reposting an old topic with information not of your own. What was your point? So what if early US gun control laws were racist? What bearing does it have on today? Are you suggesting gun control laws continue to be racist in some manner or did you just feel the need to repost old information for some reason?

If you think there is a reason why we need to be retold of this, feel free to share.

crashm1
April 17, 2009, 06:03 PM
44 amp said it well. We can point to our current president as proof that we as a nation change. Most of us on here will and do disagree with some portion of the policies of our elected representatives if it's important enough we vote them out during our biennial revolutions.
We are making progress on showing the racist and classist roots of gun control but there are still an awful lot of people to convert. I am working on both my father and father in law and a couple other liberal friends. Ideally that will add 4 or 5 people to our ranks over time. If everyone does that pretty soon we get back to the original vision of the 2nd and maybe the fed monster shrinks a little too.

Unless of course Obama switches tack and starts giving away M-4s and unlimited supplies of ammo. There won't be any deficit shrinking then.

HarrySchell
April 17, 2009, 06:27 PM
00 Spy,
I am glad this post came up again as it is the first time I have seen it and it helps fill out my history of how gun control has been used by those who would oppress others, from the Klan to bad governments.

And 44 amp is right. What makes us heroes or chumps is what happens tomorrow, the day after and so on. Knowing the past is essential so that as we change in the future, we make change for the good. We have a baseline to measure from, a list of how-to's and don't do's. Don't do's we should try to avoid. It appears to me Mr. Obama and cadre have a bag full of them they want to try anew.

trigger happy
April 17, 2009, 06:36 PM
Good God! They still Have Slaves in Samelia Too! So what is your point?learn how to spell Somalia and we'll try to take you seriously

orchidhunter
April 18, 2009, 10:38 AM
Double Naught Spy, See post #24. orchidhunter

gc70
April 18, 2009, 12:48 PM
So what if early US gun control laws were racist? What bearing does it have on today?

Many US gun control laws do have racist roots, but that is only the beginning of the story. After overt racism became less acceptable, many of the racially-based laws were changed to discretionary restrictions and prohibitions; the "authorities" entrusted with discretion under those laws "knew" who was acceptable and who was not. Over time, that discretion morphed from a racial basis to an elitist basis; if you were rich, or prominent, or otherwise well-connected, you were acceptable. In the last several decades, we are have made much progress in shifting gun control laws from a basis of arbitrary discretion to transparent and consistent standards.

Double Naught Spy
April 18, 2009, 06:06 PM
Double Naught Spy, See post #24. orchidhunter

Once again, I will ask YOU. Why did you post it? What is the point you are trying to make?

I fail to understand, as per post 24, what contribution you are making by reposting old information. You apparently want to make a point, so what is it?

orchidhunter
April 18, 2009, 07:06 PM
Double Naught Spy, Yes, this subject has been discussed before.

But just because it's been discussed once or twice or whatever DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERYONE, EVERY NEW MEMBER, EVERY NEW ADVOCATE OF THE SHOOTING SPORTS, EVERY NEW GUNOWNER, IS FAMILIAR WITH IT

pendennis
April 18, 2009, 10:41 PM
We have to remember that slavery was/is not a racial issue. Slavery is about power and economics; the power of one group of people over another. Israelites, Hittites, Eqyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians all practiced slavery in one form or another; and each of these civilizations was, in turn, enslaved.

African slaves got from the interior of Africa courtesy of tribal warfare. The traders also realized that European traders were interested in cheap labor in the Caribbean islands, and Central and South America.

So, to lay blame to the founding of the United States is disengenuous. Not until slaves were freed in the mid-nineteenth century, did overt racism rear its head. People considered negroes ingnorant and uneducable, because that was their baseline of knowledge. What else would one expect, when the knowledge of Africa was limited to the ocean shores until the mid-19th century?

This discussion is being held in the light of late 20th and early 21st century perspectives. That is a far more egregious sin, than what and how people believed in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Since none of us were around in 1776, we can't be the judge of those who were.

Only in the last four hundred years has mankind moved toward science and technology societies. In fact, we weren't aware of the origins of the universe until the mid-20th century. Mankind has been around for about 3.5-to-4.5 million years. That's a long time to discover the human genome, viruses, the rocket, and oh yes, the gun.

Al Norris
April 18, 2009, 10:54 PM
First there is this thread (What is the history of Gun Control in the US ? (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22833) from April of 1999 - Fully ten years ago.

Then there is this thread ( Racism and the RKBA ... what connection? (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27237)) from June of 2000.

All the way to this thread (The Racist Origins Of The Current Concealed Carry Gun Laws In California (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298475)) from June of 2008.

Over all, this topic has been discussed a minimum of once each and every year TFL has been around. So why aren't you posting links to Clayton Cramers compelling work: The Racist Roots of Gun Control (an early abstract is here (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html)). Or how about Jim March? He's a member here and has written some excellent articles on the subject.

I guess what I'm trying to say, orchidhunter, is do the research and present the facts, if what you want to do is to help educate our newer members. What you presented in the OP, was good, but... Where were the factual links to substantiate what you were trying to say? Added to this, you left out a whole lot of history and got some of it completely wrong.

The name of the game is Reasoned and Rational Discussion.

Double Naught Spy
April 18, 2009, 11:00 PM
I'll just default to Antipitas comment.

Catfishman
April 18, 2009, 11:27 PM
That really shouldn't be too surprising considering what this country was founded upon. Racism, tyranny, genocide and class warfare.


This is a pretty offensive statement. There may be a little truth to it but the offensive part is the phrase "was founded upon". If the ancient history of every country was known-racism, tyranny, genocide, and class warfare could be found everywhere. We live in a free country were anyone has the opportunity to better themselves.
There are historical examples of Americans not having these opportunities. But they aren't what our country was founded on though. Our country was founded on positive things such as majority rule but individual have rights. When I think of America I think of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not Racism, Tyranny and Genocide. This isn't because of ignorance. It's because when I look around I see much more good than bad. I hope the country as a whole isn't shifting to such a negative view of our origins.

BTW-Great post Orchidhunter. Very educational. You can't hold down an armed people for long. Condy Rice has said that she believes that guns protected her family from Clan violence when she was a child.
This is just another angle on the idea that an armed populace will be treated better than an unarmed populace.

apr1775
April 19, 2009, 07:27 AM
Thank you Catfishman, well said.

If the topic keeps coming up, would the moderators consider making it a sticky?

I think the importance of the whole topic is to illustrate how those in power use disarmament as a way to subjugate those they feel threatened by. Ever notice how "may issue" permits are issued?

Double Naught Spy
April 19, 2009, 09:34 AM
This is a pretty offensive statement. There may be a little truth to it but the offensive part is the phrase "was founded upon". If the ancient history of every country was known-racism, tyranny, genocide, and class warfare could be found everywhere. We live in a free country were anyone has the opportunity to better themselves.

It is that way now, but it wasn't for the first 150 years. As I recall from my history, the issue of slavery was part of the Constitutional debate of our founding fathers and the decision was made to not make slavery unconstitutional. You may not consider the country as being founded on a racist past, but it really was, by elitist wealthy males who depended on slavery for their standard of living. They considered slavery to be a positive ideal and part of their pursuit of happiness. It was racist and tyrannical. Manifest destiny, while not part of the founding of the country, was a big part of the growth of the county and certainly was racist, tyrranical, and resulted in genocide.

The history of the country may have racist roots like gun laws, but do those really apply today? Nope. So what's the point of making a sticky?

44 AMP
April 19, 2009, 01:51 PM
the country as being founded on a racist past

Lots of us find that statement offensive, and biased. It represents a specific political view, and one I do not share. Change a single letter, and it changes the statement into something I believe is factual and historically accurate. Our country was not founded on a racist past. Our country was founded in a racist past.

by elitist wealthy males
I never saw this point of view in any of the history texts when I was in school. But that was quite some time ago. Apparently things are viewed differently now?

Yes, many of them were wealthy, but not all. And those elitists risked all they had, and ever would have, in order to create a system based on "all men are created equal", etc. Hardly seems an elitist ideal, that.

It has become fashionable (recently) to denigrate the Founding Fathers, because in their personal lives they were men of their era. The are called racists because some of them owned slaves. Elitists because of,.. I don't really understand why, because they were rich? or because they didn't include a particular group? or ? Focus on males, because women had no public part, implying they were excluded, (anyone who doesn't think the wives of the Founders didn't have any influence has never been married or had a serious relationship;).)

They slap these pejoratives on our Founders, because they are only looking at what the Founders did not accomplish, and not at what the did do.

Racist is a fine word. And so popular in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Looking at history, one clearly sees that mankind has been racist from day one. Primitive tribal groups are intensely "racist", except that generally skin color doesn't matter all that much. Other tribes are enemies, because they compete for the same resources. The root word for "stranger" and "enemy" is the same in many old languages.

Tribes became nations, and nations still acted the same way. But the underlying beliefs remained largely unchanged. "those guys on the other side of the hill are different from us. They look different. They talk different. They think different. Heck, the smell different! They are not our friends. They will take from us, kill us if they can. We need to do them first!"

This was (and to some degree still is) the established order of things. One people don't dominate/exterminate another just because they are of different colors, hey do it because one is weaker in numbers, or technology, because they have something the first group wants, and because they can!

Blacks weren't enslaved because they were black, Native Americans weren't driven off their land and killed because they were "redskins". It was done because they were weaker and socially different from those who did it. Claiming it was done because of their skin color ignores the fact that the same things were done to other peoples, by people of the same skin color, in the past. It makes a convenient excuse, and one used by the individuals doing the oppressing, that "they are only ......" and so it was right and proper in their eyes, since their group was superior, that obviously meant that they were "better". The weaker group was only "ignorant pagan savages", and they were "God's chosen" or some variation on that theme.

We have come a long, long way from those days, and we still have a ways to go. Disparaging the Founding Fathers because the were not able to correct all the worlds woes in one fell swoop is just wrong. They were, after all, merely men. To imply that those concepts that they fought, bled, and died for, are somehow less than worthy because those men were not able to implement them completely and instantly is disingenuous.

Nations, like individuals, begin as infants. We learn and grow with time. Pointing out repeatedly how we crapped in our diapers ignores where we are today. Knowing where we came from is important, but where we are is what counts, and where we are going is what matters!

w_houle
April 19, 2009, 03:36 PM
I think it is rather funny that one of the earlier gun bans was an attempt to remove the cheaper pistols from civilian hands and to try to have people buy the Army and Navy pistols of the day, but yet are currently trying to ban people from using guns used by the Army and Navy.
If someone could help with citation on this, it would be greatly appreciated!

#18indycolts
April 20, 2009, 08:59 AM
I never saw this point of view in any of the history texts when I was in school.

Exactly, and there is a reason for that. Because american history books are typically written by the winners, not the losers. They want us to be patriotic, and support everything the government does because it's always for the good. Nobody really cares about dead civilians during war, they think its all ok cuz they say its part of war and "civilian casualties are at a minimum." The books in school are ONE sided, its meant to be that way. Dissidence has always been frowned upon, they don't want the general population to have a different view. They want us to believe what they tell us.
Look at a key figure in history. Columbus is portrayed as a hero, even his own holiday. You don't learn in school that he and his men murdered hundreds of thousands of native americans, and enslaved thousands more. Reading books that were written by the oppressed (the blacks, native americans, women, the poor..etc) are fascinating. The history is radically different than what we were taught in school. I forget who said these quotes, but they stick in my mind. "We don't want to hear the words of the people in the white house, we want to hear the words of the people that are picketing the white house." "Democracy is in dissent, democracy is in resistance, it doesn't come from the top, it comes from the bottom.

Dragon55
April 20, 2009, 09:09 AM
Big Difference in 'in' and 'on'. To say it was founded on racist principles troubles me.

a7mmnut
April 20, 2009, 09:10 AM
Is this crap still going on? Every tyrannical leader since before Christ has taken up arms against some minority of people--caucasian, middle eastern, Asian, Indian, islanders, African tribes........................


The only difference is most all of them have failed to continually whine about it for hundreds of years.:barf:

-7-

Double Naught Spy
April 20, 2009, 12:46 PM
I never saw this point of view in any of the history texts when I was in school. But that was quite some time ago. Apparently things are viewed differently now?

Yes, many of them were wealthy, but not all. And those elitists risked all they had, and ever would have, in order to create a system based on "all men are created equal", etc. Hardly seems an elitist ideal, that.

No, the weren't all wealthy, but the vast majority were. In fact, I am having trouble tracking down any who weren't. Holy cow, some even came from nobility. By the time they were participating in the signing of the Declaration of Independence and Consitution, they certainly weren't commoners any longer.

I am glad you decided to refute the racism issue and interject with the "all men are created equal" business, but that slavery and taking land from Native Americans was because the were, what did you say, oh here it is, ...
It was done because they were weaker and socially different from those who did it.

So much for being created equal. Slavery was allowed not because all men were created equal. The government pushed for expansion not because of being gracious liberators of the land, but because they figured they could take what they wanted so long as it fit with their goals. Expansion of the country was not done with any sort of respectful consideration of Native Americans whose land was being taken.

Yeah, y'all can be offended that I don't see the founding of our country through the rose colored glasses of patriotism. I do recognize that our elitist white forefathers, most of whom were quite wealthy, land owners often with considerable holdings, did risk it all, but not everything they did was because they wanted a better country for everybody, otherwise they would not have allowed slavery to continue.

What they did might have eventually turned out pretty good, but it certainly wasn't pretty for millions of people for an extended period of time. You think the founding fathers risked it all for this country? What of the slaves and Native Americans who were forced into compliance at the end of a muzzle, whip, and sword?

Y'all act like your church going mom has been insulted. Just because she goes to church now doesn't mean she didn't raise hell earlier in her life.

Mike Irwin
April 20, 2009, 01:16 PM
"No, the weren't all wealthy, but the vast majority were. In fact, I am having trouble tracking down any who weren't."

Roger Sherman wasn't particularly wealthy, nor was the Rev. John Witherspoon.

Caesar Rodney I'm not so sure about.

Samuel Adams was by no stretch of the imagination wealthy. When he was elected to Congress his friends pitched together to buy him new clothes so that he presented a good image to the rest of the delegates.

John Morton of Pennsylvania wasn't particuarly wealth, either, I don't think.

Obviously most of these men were considered to be at least prosperous. At that time the entry way into politics at virtually every level was to own land, and to own land meant that you at least had some property. Even Sam Adams owned some property, but mainly through his family and his wife.

Catfishman
April 20, 2009, 05:04 PM
I completely agree with 44Amp and the only thing I agree with #18IndyColts about is his favorite football player.

We don't want to hear the words of the people in the white house, we want to hear the words of the people that are picketing the white house." "Democracy is in dissent, democracy is in resistance, it doesn't come from the top, it comes from the bottom.

Few people trust powerful politicians less than me. But remember there are lying, cheating, ignorant fools at the top and the bottom of society. Just because someone pickets and questions power doesn't make them wise.

Nations, like individuals, begin as infants. We learn and grow with time. Pointing out repeatedly how we crapped in our diapers ignores where we are today. Knowing where we came from is important, but where we are is what counts, and where we are going is what matters!


Extremely well put.

skydiver3346
April 20, 2009, 09:58 PM
Am I out of touch here? Maybe I just don't have all the facts? But I gotta go with Antipitas's comments myself.

18indycolts: I'm sure you are a good guy. But to me, these kind of statements (you just made here) are a little overboard. I'm sure you pushed a lot of folk's buttons with your comments. But I do respect your right to espouse your beliefs. It is good that we have a forum here on the Firing Line to do just that.

44 AMP
April 20, 2009, 11:37 PM
To discuss our opinions of the Founding Fathers, I fear that the continued drift from the OP would lead to thread closure.

However, before I leave this subject (perhaps we might discuss these things privately? or in a different thread?) I would like to explain two things in my point of view.

1) That I consider the "Founding Fathers" to be more than just those individuals signing the Declaration of Independence, and so well remembered in history. To me, our Founding Fathers includes all those who joined in and made the Revolution successful. Not just the "wealthy elitist males", but the rank and file citizen soldiers too. And those at home who supported them and their cause, men and women.

2) "All men are created equal" A true phrase. All of us are created equal, through the biological act of procreation. The same for the rich and powerful as it is for the poor and powerless. It doesn't mean that all men are equal, and it never did. Only that since we are all created equal, we should all be equally treated under the law.

As to the origins of our gun control laws, I see them as racist, broadly as the term is commonly used today, by application, if not outright design. Even the Sullivan Laws, aimed at ethnic groups racially white, would be in that category, as well.

It is a well recognised fact that laws always have unintended consequences. Even though many of the laws originators fail to behave as if they understand this. I think the "racist" originators of our early gun control laws would be quite upset at how their laws are being applied today! Too bad for us they didn't think of that, and kept their pens and their votes to themselves.

The law is the law, and must be applied to everyone equally. I don't agree with the need or the usefulness of most gun control laws, but until they are changed, they are the law, and what we must comply and live with.

Until they pass a law saying I can't complain about them, I will continue to do so. And I think you should too!

#18indycolts
April 21, 2009, 10:13 AM
Just because someone pickets and questions power doesn't make them wise.


Tell that to the women that fought for their rights, tell that to the working class that fought for better conditions, shorter work days, workmans comp and PAID holidays and vacations. Tell that to the blacks that fought for equality and civil rights. Those that picket and question power are those that bled and died for others rights. I'm sorry but I feel it to be a WONDERFUL thing for people to question power, especially Government power...if you don't then will you be ok for them to take your gun rights away? You have to fight and think for yourself.

Al Norris
April 21, 2009, 01:49 PM
It looks as if my comments have sidetracked this thread.

The only remedy I can apply, since everyone appears to want to discuss the side issue instead of the main issue, is to close the thread, due to thread veer.