Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Yes oppressive government in the Jim Crow South was oppressive. Saying that doesn't eliminate the actions of private citizens.
..snip very real historical examples of white violence against minorities-which are
nonetheless merely 'argument by association'.
As I said people with guns tend to support oppressive government.
Why, yes, you did- but your examples of violence against people of color neither proves nor disproves
your argument.
Just how much utility did armed African Americans have?
I'd say that the fact that we're even discussing the idea, and that *some* AA's think it
was and is a good idea demonstrates its value as an exemplar, if nothing else...
Besides getting open carry laws changed in California they played into the hands of racist propaganda that still lives today. Witness the rights reaction to a member of the Panthers being near a polling place.
Or witness the reaction to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club marching in the Dallas area ...
Black Panthers & Huey P Newton Gun Club Outnumber Armed White Hate Group At Mosque #48
The white hate group BAIR(Bureau of American Islamic Relations) went armed in front of Muhammad Mosque #48 in South Dallas,Tx. The hate group was met by Black Panthers,Huey P. Newton Gun Club,Bloods,and Crips. The hate group left after being encouraged by police to leave.(Sourcesallas Morning News,Original Man Visions,KDFW Fox 4,Breitbart News)
...and Austin:
Good on them for helping to keep the racists in line!
The largest revolution in history was led by a little man wearing a diaper whilst preaching non-violence.
This elides several factors: the roles of Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League,
British realization that they could not continue to hold India after the Second World War, and the fact that
Gandhi-ji was somewhat influential in Britain proper- the Brits had no compunction about rather brutally
repressing the Mau Maus in Kenya during the Fifties.
We live in a nation that is still partly democratic.
For the moment...
I don't think the right to bear arms is a right of the individual. Imo Heller was wrongly decided just as Citizens United was.
Unfortunately for that viewpoint, both dissents in Heller found it to be an individual right
(Note: emphasis added)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Stevens, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit
[June 26, 2008]
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals....
Stevens, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit
[June 26, 2008]
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not....
II
The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not....
II
The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read