Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Liberals and a Real Fight Against Institutional Racism
How many people celebrating MLK Day are also ardent gun control supporters? Where is the long-term strategy for liberation? Thirty years after gun control in California, black people are being locked away more than ever, and the police kill any black person they want.
GUN CONTROL "LIBERALS" AND BLACK LIBERATION MOVEMENTS
BY JOHN BENDER
The current war against the right to own and carry a firearm is an attack on the basic human right of self defense. It is elitist and racist at its core and when implemented causes disproportionate harm to the weakest and poorest members of society.
The right to defend one's person and property is a basic human right that was recognized in every civilization the world ever produced. Even histories most repressive societies have recognized this human right, but restricted it to the favored classes.
Every civilization recognized self defense as the right of free men, but restricted this right, or denied it, to slaves and subjects. As far back as ancient Egypt and ancient China, the government recognized the right of free men to defend themselves and their property.
In ancient times slaves and subjugated people were barred from defending themselves, and from owning the tools to defend themselves. Even in the United States, slaves were forbidden to own or carry weapons without permission from their masters.
After slavery was abolished in the United States, the first restrictions on owning and carrying firearms were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of emancipated blacks. Don B. Kates, Jr., a San Francisco civil-liberties attorney, whose liberal credentials include being a clerk for radical Leftist, William Kunstler, a stint as a civil rights worker in the South and time as lawyer for the Office of Economic Opportunity, documents the racist origins of our modern gun control movement in his book, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptic Speaks Out.
Mr. Kates documents that in the 1870s, small pistols, selling for as little as $.50, were seen as a threat to the post-war Southern establishment because freed blacks could easily afford them. He shows that this lead to an 1870 law in Tennessee that banned "selling all but the Army and Navy model handgun, i.e., the most expensive one, which was beyond the means of most blacks and laboring people."
Other Southern states followed suit. Alabama and Texas restricted blacks and poor white people from owning guns through heavy business and transaction taxes. In 1881 Arkansas pass a law that was almost identical to Tennessee's law. In 1902 South Carolina passed a law against selling handguns to anyone except sheriffs and their special deputies. In effect barring ownership by anyone except the well connected or wealthy.
In the North things were no better. New York's infamous Sullivan Law that required one to apply for and obtain a permit from the police to own or carry a handgun was racist and elitist.
Instead of trying to price guns out of the reach of the poor and those considered inferior, this law allowed the police to simply deny them permission to buy or carry a gun. The method was different, but the purpose and implementation were no less racist or elitist. The Sullivan Law was passed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and the new immigrants that were flooding into the city at the time.
Italians, Jews, Southern and eastern European immigrants, were racially and religiously suspect, and considered inferior. Consequently, along with Blacks, they were routinely denied gun permits by the elites.
Over the years this trend became increasingly elitist. New York now rarely issues a gun permit to anyone who is not very rich or politically influential.
At the federal level the situation is just as bad. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in response to the rise of black militants like the Black Panthers and the riots in black neighborhoods in 1967 and 1968.
It was not politically correct in 1968 to pass laws that were blatantly anti-black so Congress made the law applicable to everyone. Of course, they left plenty of room for the elite to obtain guns. The political class, the wealthy, and some in the middle class, retained access to guns.
In their 1968 law, the elitists banned the sale of inexpensive guns called "Saturday Night Specials", imported military weapons, and mail-order sales. These were aimed at cutting off the flow of weapons to blacks and the poor. Over the counter sales of more expensive weapons were untouched by the law.
Eldridge Cleaver, Minister of Information for the Black Panthers, said at the time; "Some very interesting laws are being passed. They don't name me. They don't say take the guns away from the niggers. They say that people will no longer be allowed to have them. They don't pass these rules and those regulations specifically for black people. They have to pass them in a way that will take in everybody."
Today, the elitists, who are slowly striping the common citizen of his civil right to own and carry a firearm, are either well armed or surrounded by well armed guards. Dianne Feinstein carries a gun for self protection. Rosie O'Donnell has a detail of well armed body guards surrounding her and her family. Other anti-civil rights leaders are similarly protected.
The people who are being striped of their ability to defend themselves are the people who cannot afford private bodyguards and are not members of the political class. They are the average citizens and the poor.
Last year Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo diverted more than thirty million taxpayers' dollars from providing affordable housing to a scheme to buy guns from the poor. This is in addition to taxpayer money he diverted to encourage government agencies to buy Smith and Wesson guns instead of buying guns from other manufacturers. He also was one of the leaders in the scheme to get cities and other government bodies to bring groundless nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Instead of working on providing housing for the poor and near poor Cuomo used his Department and tax dollars in a despicable assault on civil-rights. He joined other radicals in some of the most blatant attacks on our rights since the Jim Crow days of the Thirties and Forties.
Cuomo's bigotry against the poor is blatant. On page 2 of the shoddy, irresponsible, propaganda piece put out by his department called: "In The Crossfire: The Impact Of Gun Violence On Public Housing Communities" is the statement: "There is a strong correlation between income and violent crime; thus the low-income population in public housing is especially vulnerable to gun violence."
Just imagine how outraged Cuomo would be if a government agency put out a report that said: "There is a strong correlation between Italians and membership in the Mafia; thus the people who live in neighborhoods with large Italian populations are especially vulnerable to organized crime." Cuomo would be screaming, whining and calling the author a bigot. He can stereotype the poor but others better not stereotype him.
If a conservative printed a bigoted remark like that, the elite press and the national socialists would be screaming for his head. However, Cuomo is one of their own and he gets a pass for insinuating that the poor are more violent than the rich.
There is a correlation between income and violence because the elitists like Cuomo stripped the market of firearms the poor can afford. Higher income people can afford more expensive guns and the fees licenses etc. the elitists use to infringe their rights. The political class can afford the expensive guns and private bodyguards. The poor cannot. The poor are NOT more violent than anyone else. They are easier targets.
In the case of senior citizens, taking away their right to own and carry a firearm turns their right to self defense into and empty concept. Seniors lack the strength and agility to defend themselves with other tools, or to flee attack. Unarmed they are easy prey for thugs.
Middle class and poor seniors are most at risk. They are living on fixed incomes that do not stretch far enough to pay for private armed body guards. They do not have large amounts of money to contribute to politicians, so they are denied the privilege of a permit to own and carry a firearm. They are reduced to being targets for the thugs and the punks looking for an easy target.
More than 360,000 seniors are living in public housing. They are denied their civil-right to own and carry a gun so they live in fear. They are easy prey because they have been striped of their right to own and carry the only tool that is effective for their defense. Cuomo's own report admits that people who live in public housing are two times more likely to be victims of violence than the general population where guns are more available.
SUSSA is dedicated to educating the public about their human right to defend themselves, and their constitutional right to own and carry the most effective tool for that purpose. We want people to know that their rights are being turned into privileges. We are dedicated to protecting our civil rights and the civil rights of all American citizens regardless of their race, religion, or national origin.
SUSSA is dedicated to exposing the anti-civil rights extremists for the bigots and elitists that they are. Restricting one's right to own and carry the most effective defensive tool available, should be no more acceptable than poll taxes and literacy tests.
BY JOHN BENDER
The current war against the right to own and carry a firearm is an attack on the basic human right of self defense. It is elitist and racist at its core and when implemented causes disproportionate harm to the weakest and poorest members of society.
The right to defend one's person and property is a basic human right that was recognized in every civilization the world ever produced. Even histories most repressive societies have recognized this human right, but restricted it to the favored classes.
Every civilization recognized self defense as the right of free men, but restricted this right, or denied it, to slaves and subjects. As far back as ancient Egypt and ancient China, the government recognized the right of free men to defend themselves and their property.
In ancient times slaves and subjugated people were barred from defending themselves, and from owning the tools to defend themselves. Even in the United States, slaves were forbidden to own or carry weapons without permission from their masters.
After slavery was abolished in the United States, the first restrictions on owning and carrying firearms were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of emancipated blacks. Don B. Kates, Jr., a San Francisco civil-liberties attorney, whose liberal credentials include being a clerk for radical Leftist, William Kunstler, a stint as a civil rights worker in the South and time as lawyer for the Office of Economic Opportunity, documents the racist origins of our modern gun control movement in his book, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptic Speaks Out.
Mr. Kates documents that in the 1870s, small pistols, selling for as little as $.50, were seen as a threat to the post-war Southern establishment because freed blacks could easily afford them. He shows that this lead to an 1870 law in Tennessee that banned "selling all but the Army and Navy model handgun, i.e., the most expensive one, which was beyond the means of most blacks and laboring people."
Other Southern states followed suit. Alabama and Texas restricted blacks and poor white people from owning guns through heavy business and transaction taxes. In 1881 Arkansas pass a law that was almost identical to Tennessee's law. In 1902 South Carolina passed a law against selling handguns to anyone except sheriffs and their special deputies. In effect barring ownership by anyone except the well connected or wealthy.
In the North things were no better. New York's infamous Sullivan Law that required one to apply for and obtain a permit from the police to own or carry a handgun was racist and elitist.
Instead of trying to price guns out of the reach of the poor and those considered inferior, this law allowed the police to simply deny them permission to buy or carry a gun. The method was different, but the purpose and implementation were no less racist or elitist. The Sullivan Law was passed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and the new immigrants that were flooding into the city at the time.
Italians, Jews, Southern and eastern European immigrants, were racially and religiously suspect, and considered inferior. Consequently, along with Blacks, they were routinely denied gun permits by the elites.
Over the years this trend became increasingly elitist. New York now rarely issues a gun permit to anyone who is not very rich or politically influential.
At the federal level the situation is just as bad. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in response to the rise of black militants like the Black Panthers and the riots in black neighborhoods in 1967 and 1968.
It was not politically correct in 1968 to pass laws that were blatantly anti-black so Congress made the law applicable to everyone. Of course, they left plenty of room for the elite to obtain guns. The political class, the wealthy, and some in the middle class, retained access to guns.
In their 1968 law, the elitists banned the sale of inexpensive guns called "Saturday Night Specials", imported military weapons, and mail-order sales. These were aimed at cutting off the flow of weapons to blacks and the poor. Over the counter sales of more expensive weapons were untouched by the law.
Eldridge Cleaver, Minister of Information for the Black Panthers, said at the time; "Some very interesting laws are being passed. They don't name me. They don't say take the guns away from the niggers. They say that people will no longer be allowed to have them. They don't pass these rules and those regulations specifically for black people. They have to pass them in a way that will take in everybody."
Today, the elitists, who are slowly striping the common citizen of his civil right to own and carry a firearm, are either well armed or surrounded by well armed guards. Dianne Feinstein carries a gun for self protection. Rosie O'Donnell has a detail of well armed body guards surrounding her and her family. Other anti-civil rights leaders are similarly protected.
The people who are being striped of their ability to defend themselves are the people who cannot afford private bodyguards and are not members of the political class. They are the average citizens and the poor.
Last year Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo diverted more than thirty million taxpayers' dollars from providing affordable housing to a scheme to buy guns from the poor. This is in addition to taxpayer money he diverted to encourage government agencies to buy Smith and Wesson guns instead of buying guns from other manufacturers. He also was one of the leaders in the scheme to get cities and other government bodies to bring groundless nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Instead of working on providing housing for the poor and near poor Cuomo used his Department and tax dollars in a despicable assault on civil-rights. He joined other radicals in some of the most blatant attacks on our rights since the Jim Crow days of the Thirties and Forties.
Cuomo's bigotry against the poor is blatant. On page 2 of the shoddy, irresponsible, propaganda piece put out by his department called: "In The Crossfire: The Impact Of Gun Violence On Public Housing Communities" is the statement: "There is a strong correlation between income and violent crime; thus the low-income population in public housing is especially vulnerable to gun violence."
Just imagine how outraged Cuomo would be if a government agency put out a report that said: "There is a strong correlation between Italians and membership in the Mafia; thus the people who live in neighborhoods with large Italian populations are especially vulnerable to organized crime." Cuomo would be screaming, whining and calling the author a bigot. He can stereotype the poor but others better not stereotype him.
If a conservative printed a bigoted remark like that, the elite press and the national socialists would be screaming for his head. However, Cuomo is one of their own and he gets a pass for insinuating that the poor are more violent than the rich.
There is a correlation between income and violence because the elitists like Cuomo stripped the market of firearms the poor can afford. Higher income people can afford more expensive guns and the fees licenses etc. the elitists use to infringe their rights. The political class can afford the expensive guns and private bodyguards. The poor cannot. The poor are NOT more violent than anyone else. They are easier targets.
In the case of senior citizens, taking away their right to own and carry a firearm turns their right to self defense into and empty concept. Seniors lack the strength and agility to defend themselves with other tools, or to flee attack. Unarmed they are easy prey for thugs.
Middle class and poor seniors are most at risk. They are living on fixed incomes that do not stretch far enough to pay for private armed body guards. They do not have large amounts of money to contribute to politicians, so they are denied the privilege of a permit to own and carry a firearm. They are reduced to being targets for the thugs and the punks looking for an easy target.
More than 360,000 seniors are living in public housing. They are denied their civil-right to own and carry a gun so they live in fear. They are easy prey because they have been striped of their right to own and carry the only tool that is effective for their defense. Cuomo's own report admits that people who live in public housing are two times more likely to be victims of violence than the general population where guns are more available.
SUSSA is dedicated to educating the public about their human right to defend themselves, and their constitutional right to own and carry the most effective tool for that purpose. We want people to know that their rights are being turned into privileges. We are dedicated to protecting our civil rights and the civil rights of all American citizens regardless of their race, religion, or national origin.
SUSSA is dedicated to exposing the anti-civil rights extremists for the bigots and elitists that they are. Restricting one's right to own and carry the most effective defensive tool available, should be no more acceptable than poll taxes and literacy tests.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Maybe you're one of those people who believes if every one was armed we'd be a lot safer but I don't buy it. Look at Afghanistan.
Liberals are *against* solving the social contradictions of capitalism, but are *in favor* of granting the sick government the ability to disarm ordinary people.
For instance, these days you have Copwatch, meaning citizens armed with video cameras. Many of them are just arrested by cops. Video cameras only do good on the spot if the cop has common sense and doesnt want to be implicated in a lawsuit.
Shotguns, on the other hand, as carried by the Black Panthers, even the playing field and people can prevent serious brutality without ever becoming violent.
How did we get to a point where cops shoot young black men in the back all the time? What if cops knew that these kids could possibly be packing heat LEGALLY --- you think they might show them a little bit more respect? I think so.
Guns are readily available to those who wish to do harm against you. If you are involved in criminal enterprises, i.e. drug dealing or whatnot, you can get a gun. The people who cannot get guns are the poor folks who live in these neighborhoods. And I have personally witnessed some crazy shit in low income neighborhoods I live in, and all I can think is how it would have been different had the normal, everyday honest person would have been trained in shooting and armed.
I live in a low-income community and know that if more guns were available people would be using them on each other not the cops. That's sad but it's true. People have "beefs" with each other over the stupidest things and it all too often escalates into violence. More guns on the street would just mean more poor people being killed.
Now if we lived in a society like the anarchists desire I think a well armed public would be a great thing. Capitalism would be abolished, we'd be organized into neighborhood militias, and so on. The problem is we don't.
I'm well aware of the history of the BPP and think the neighborhood patrols were effective at first. However, the fact that they were armed didn't prevent the cops from shooting at them. In fact, the cops developed an overkill approach when dealing with the Panthers and shot them down with impunity. I think this is clear when you realize how many cops were killed by Panthers compared to Panthers killed by cops.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about when you write, "The people who cannot get guns are the poor folks who live in these neighborhoods." Visit Richmond lately? Oakland? East Palo Alto? There are plenty of guns in low-income communities and they aren't only in the hands of thugs. Plenty of everyday folks have them. Unfortunately, all too often those guns get into the hands of kids who take them to school, they are used in domestic disputes, etc.
To conclude, I think the classic libertarian argument is too simplistic and doesn't account for social reality in low-income communities.
this assumption does not make ANY sense, nor does reality suggest it does: the number of homocides committed anywhere tends to correlate rather directly with the number of arms available.
"without a gun and a badge, what do you got? a sucker in a uniform waiting to get shot by me, or another nigga, cuz with a gat it dont matter if you're smaller or bigger"
However, that does not dispell the fact that guns in low-income communities are used by poor people against other poor people. This is reality on the street. You can make your theoretical libertarian arguments all you like but it doesn't change reality. Guns in low income communities are used against other low income people. To change that you need to change the social reality. As you know you can't blow up a social relationship...
Look, I know all the libertarian angles on this issue because I used to be one. However I think reality flies in the face of the argument that guns keep people free. Look at Afghanistan. If there ever was a well-armed society Afghanistan is it. But that didn't prevent an oppressive dictatorial regime from taking power. So the argument that we are free because we have guns is simply garbage to me. If that were the case the Taliban would never have been able take control of the country. They certainly didn't have a monopoly on the use of force. Everyone was armed!
I also don't think that people are less likely to start shit with each other if they know other people are armed. If anything, in my experience, people who are armed are more likely to escalate petty arguments and use violence to solve their problems. I've seen this time and time again in the schools, at clubs, and on the street.
Social change in the US has occurred not due to gun ownership but (in the words of the IWW), education, organization, and agitiation. I don't think more guns in the hood' is an answer.
And don't put words into my mouth especially ones as ridiculous as you wrote. A woman being raped not having the right to defend herself, puh-leeez...
As for your question about Afghanistan, this is not an example that is so easy. For instance, I don't recommend that the wolrd's superpower flood an area with arms, stinger missiles, etc ... this does nothing besides create a tinderbox and warlordism.
In the words of Chumbawamba, here is your disgusting attitude: "if you gave them nice houses, they'd only burn them down ... you dont get that ... in a white man's town"
I might also add that many poor white people are now unable to get guns, where no-knock searches and raids are quite common, even more so than urban areas I tend to think, since they can execute these enormous military raids without the peer review of a bunch of neighbors and leftist activist groups. And those people know more about guns and gun safety than you ever will.
But I have seen how guns are used and who they are used against, my friends and neighbors. My neighbors have guns too but has that made us any safer? Any less police brutality? Has such a high level of gun ownership in the US contributed to social change?
As I said earlier, we should be able to agree to disagree without you having to put words into my mouth. It doesn't make your argument any stronger and it certainly doesn't change the reality of the social and economic situation.
As far as your comment on Afghanistan, it was plagued by warlordism long before the US got involved...
i can understand that many people would like to believe - especially the 'weak' - that the possession of weapons will make them safer. sadly this is not true. it is violent people (rapists for example) who are especially interested in the free availability of arms. while self-defence is something important, i believe that peaceful people take the wrong decision in choosing the path of violence, too. they will become what they believe to fight at best, get crushed by the violent (violence is there home-grounds after all) at worst.
...as to your argument of arms possesion preventing rape: while i very much understand the desire to seek the comfort of safety in such a way, i disagree even here, for i doubt it makes you safer - especially in the long term! for arms lead to violence, and violence - ultimately - leads to war. and under no circumstances are more women (and men) raped than under the circumstances of war. also i have never (!) heard of a woman being able to deterr a potential rapist with a gun; for once you know whats going on, usually that moron will already have a violently tight grip on you, and you wont get a chance to snatch your gun - and in that situation the gun might rather put you in even bigger danger instead of protecting you!
...as to my spelling: if this is truly a problem for you i suggest we continue the conversation in MY mothertongue or any of the other languages i speak. -sorry, i forgot you probably don't speak any foreign languages. now, who exactly is the ignorant one?
Be ye tall or be ye small, I have made ye evil all.
Might I also add that gun control, as any state law, is maintained by the threat of violence. If you don't obey the law, men with guns with forcibly detain you, perhaps for your entire life. Does that count as violence in your fucked up world?
Et aussi...quel langage, mon ami présomptueux?
Assuming a right to own guns, the following restrictions should apply:
1. Ban all the saturday night specials and other such weapons specifically produced for drug dealers, etc, mostly by the Ring of Fire companies in Los Angeles.
2. Any body who wants a gun should take a test to prove proficiency and the gun should be registered by the government, as cars are.
3. Felons and those with violent mental illness should be prohibited from owning guns. Extensive criminal and public health background checks are essential.
4. If children are in the house, guns should be secure as a condition for obtaining insurance, which should also be mandatory.
All these measures would require greatly enhanced government power. Handle it.
The notion that blacks, poor people, etc. need guns to defend themselves against the police or start the revolution is ridiculous. If the cops want to take out some rebels, they'll just fix the GPS co-ordinates and fire the lasers from space. Your stupid pistols won't save you.
As for all this whining about the liberals who want to take away your rights, let me remind you that it was the liberals who won for you the right to engage in all your radical left/right/ political activity without the Gestapo banging down your door. At least until Bush got elected, that is. And how many of you voted for Nader and threw the election to the Republicans? Some thanks after all the hard work WE liberals put in to secure your rights.
Grow up, you cry babies.
Liberals are now almost exactly irrelevant. They can't defend the welfare state, they don't leverage wage-increases, they're fully impotent in the face of capital's power.
Thanks in part to liberals, the US is a police state -- on paper. In practise, we still have some freedoms because the state fears a backlash if it were to avail itself of the 'rights' that the liberals have helped to codify.
We must ask: Do the forces of repression fear the liberals?
We must answer: No.
Your first problem is shifting the focus of gun control from repression to "safety" ... which it patently is not. you want to know why your safety rules arent in place now? Because the government is not at all concerned about safety and they are ultimately concerned about legitimate dissent. Keep in mind that the original gun control mentioned here was passed when the Blank Panthers started measures to protect themselves from police who were breaking the law.
So keep it up, you might like the sound of your own voice, but you are really, really the problem. And more of us are realizing it every day.
I'll be happy to save your anarchist neck. And I won't even rub it in that, once again, liberals are the only ones who defend your rights. And I won't even send you a bill, since my ACLU work is pro bono. It's all part of my role as a "humanitarian mouthpiece for capitalist exploitation." Hey, you have to make a living.
Ungrateful pro bono clients are the price we pay for living in a free-er, I mean "humanitarian but exploitive capitalist" society.