The Trayvon Martin shooting has provided the left with fodder to call for legislation restricting gun ownership. Although the steady killing of urban youth by other urban youth gets ignored, probably because no racial differences exist between those parties, and the shootings by One Goh in Oakland got relatively little attention, the airwaves have been burning up over the Martin shooting. This, of course was before the media found out the shooter is an Hispanic. When I saw his photo, I actually thought he was black. It is no surprise that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the usual suspects have been pushing for gun restrictions, they should know better. They should know that gun control laws were enacted throughout the south to limit the ownership of guns to blacks. Martin Luther King, Jr. applied for a gun permit in Alabama and was turned down. They should also remember that Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote the majority decision in the Dred Scott case said the following:
"If 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, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of the law for which a white man would be punished, citizenship 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. And all this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
Gun ownership provided blacks protection, especially in the deep south during a time when whites knew that if they killed a black person, they would likely never spend a day in jail. My grandfather in Gray, Georgia on at least two occasions sheltered black men in his house who had been threatened with bodily harm by whites for some perceived inappropriate behavior toward white women. My grandfather gathered other black men with guns and stayed on alert for the Klan. After emotions cooled, the two black men moved to nearby Macon. I always marveled that my grandfather encouraged his fellow blacks to vote and was generally well regarded and respected by whites. My grandfather not only was a gun owner, he also carried – as did my father. To my knowledge neither of them ever used the guns against another human, but neither would brook a threat to themselves or to their families.In their tradition, I have always owned handguns, rifles and shotguns. When I lived in DC all those years, I violated the law having handguns in my home and in my vehicles. I welcomed moving to Tennessee where you did not even need a permit to own a gun for home protection. So Jesse Jackson and his ilk do blacks a disservice by pressing for gun control. Many residents of Chicago, DC and other cities live in fear in their own homes. All should own guns. The bad guys who shoot each other and do drive-bys will have their guns. Where once, blacks had to protect themselves from “law biding” whites, today they mainly have to protect themselves from hooligans of all races. George Zimmerman may well be law biding and well intentioned or he may enjoy shooting people. We have laws and courts that will judge him. Regardless, George Zimmerman should have no impact on the ability of people to bear arms.
Now for full disclosure: After I wrote this I was sent the following article written by Ann Coulter who says essentially the same thing.
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/04/18/negroes_with_guns/page/full/
Friday, April 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
predicted the calls for gun control about 2 days into the Martin case. The real question that nobody is asking is this: If you are an innocent mild mannered athletic 17 year old boy who went for skittles, and you think a strange man is following you, so you start running, he runs after you but you outrun him (all evidenced by 911 call), why would you stop running before reaching the safety of home or friends? Why would you go back around that man who may have a weapon and want to rob you? What would be the reason for an innocent boy to return rather than taking the long way home to avoid that danger?
Post a Comment