This is precisely what happened with the Black Panthers in the 70's. "Guns rights" activists were all about all weapons for everyone, but only in a "good for me and not for thee" sort of way. Once...
This is precisely what happened with the Black Panthers in the 70's. "Guns rights" activists were all about all weapons for everyone, but only in a "good for me and not for thee" sort of way. Once the Black Panthers decided that they could carry guns too suddenly gun control was far more important.
You're talking about the Mulford Act from 1967 and your statement is both revisionist and untrue. California's racially motivated gun control actually lead to a massive overhaul of the NRA where...
"Guns rights" activists were all about all weapons for everyone
You're talking about the Mulford Act from 1967 and your statement is both revisionist and untrue. California's racially motivated gun control actually lead to a massive overhaul of the NRA where nearly the entirety of the NRA leadership was booted out and the whole organization redone from the top down. It's referred to as the "Revolt at Cincinnati". Prior to this the NRA was NOT "weapons for everyone" and the NRA often participated in gun control legislation like the Mulford Act. The post '77 NRA is a different animal as are the firearms owners who belong to it.
The modern NRA has taken flack for not speaking out on high profile cases involving minorities but its important to note that they don't speak out on high profile cases involving WHITES either. In fact the only time the NRA does speak out is when its involving police being injured. I don't believe the modern NRA is racist, it's just overwhelmingly pro-cop...which is a problem of a different color.
As a "gun guy" I agree that something is wrong in this particular case. The SYG laws that Alabama has SHOULD be protecting Ms. Dixon and I'm stymied as to why they're not. However to use a racist action from five decades ago as proof of modern day beliefs among gun owners is just...disingenuous.
I stand corrected as to the date of the Mulford Act, thank you. But while the NRA did see a change in direction to be more hard-line resistant to any gun restrictions in '77, there was no major...
I stand corrected as to the date of the Mulford Act, thank you. But while the NRA did see a change in direction to be more hard-line resistant to any gun restrictions in '77, there was no major gun control legislation for them to position themselves either for or against in '67, with testimony to congress in support of gun control being limited to support of "saturday night specials." As such, claiming that they were pro gun control during the time in question is questionable in its own right.
Anyway, I think that bringing up a way in which historically gun laws and gun acceptability were addressed differently depending on the race of the person in question is entirely appropriate given the current situation in the case of Jacqueline Dixon.
Hold up a second. You're attempting to simultaneously use the Mulford Act as proof that the NRA and its members were anti-gun rights for minorities WHILE trying to claim that the NRA wasn't...
Hold up a second. You're attempting to simultaneously use the Mulford Act as proof that the NRA and its members were anti-gun rights for minorities WHILE trying to claim that the NRA wasn't positioning itself either for or against gun control in the 1960s. You can't have both, either the NRA helped with the Mulford Act and thus it reflects on them or they did not help with it and it does not.
Historically the NRA did support the Mulford Act - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/ and they supported other gun control at both the state and federal level. This includes a MAJOR piece of Federal Legislation called the "Gun Control Act of 1968"! The GCA of '68 is still a primary piece of legislation today in 2018!
Honestly you know so little of the NRA, its history, and how it works you should probably stop commenting on it.
We agree on Ms. Dixon, based on the article posted something is not right. Either there is more to the story than being reported or there is a serious issue with the police's neglect of the SYG statute in this case.
This is not entirely accurate. In a lot of ways, the Black Panthers were the instigators of gun-crazed "from my cold dead hands" NRA culture we know today. There's a wonderful episode of the...
This is not entirely accurate. In a lot of ways, the Black Panthers were the instigators of gun-crazed "from my cold dead hands" NRA culture we know today. There's a wonderful episode of the WNYC's More Perfect podcast discussing the history of the gun rights movement and the role of the Black Panthers in it. Highly recommended! https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gun-show/
I think the fact that the NRA hasn't said anything about this (or the death of Philando Castile) shows that a lot of "defense of the 2nd amendment" rhetoric doesn't seem to apply to minorities....
I think the fact that the NRA hasn't said anything about this (or the death of Philando Castile) shows that a lot of "defense of the 2nd amendment" rhetoric doesn't seem to apply to minorities. Also apparently the laws don't get applied the same. This seems like a pretty much the situation that Stand Your Ground laws were designed for.
Seriously, if you research this you'll quickly find that the NRA doesn't speak out about ANY police shootings regardless of the race or color of the victim. I don't believe the NRA is racist...
I think the fact that the NRA hasn't said anything about this (or the death of Philando Castile) shows that a lot of "defense of the 2nd amendment" rhetoric doesn't seem to apply to minorities.
Seriously, if you research this you'll quickly find that the NRA doesn't speak out about ANY police shootings regardless of the race or color of the victim. I don't believe the NRA is racist they're just very pro-cop which is also a problem but its not quite the same as being racist.
This seems like a pretty much the situation that Stand Your Ground laws were designed for.
I have to agree with you on this, something isn't adding up on this case.
That's hardly the only reason that the NRA is racist. Also, the Castile murder is unique from other shootings because other shootings do not so directly pertain to 2nd amendment rights. His death...
That's hardly the only reason that the NRA is racist. Also, the Castile murder is unique from other shootings because other shootings do not so directly pertain to 2nd amendment rights. His death is a textbook example of someone being killed for exercising their 2nd amendment rights responsibly.
It's not even clear she needs SYG laws here, as she should be protected through normal self-defense laws via the castle doctrine.The fact that she was even charged is pretty egregious.
It's not even clear she needs SYG laws here, as she should be protected through normal self-defense laws via the castle doctrine.The fact that she was even charged is pretty egregious.
Ok this makes sense. It will go to trial and she will get off on syg laws. If not then it might be something to get angry about but for now it looks like I legal system is working as intended.
Ok this makes sense. It will go to trial and she will get off on syg laws. If not then it might be something to get angry about but for now it looks like I legal system is working as intended.
I was explicitly not in favor of SYG in that thread although I was discussing with adamant anti-SYG folks. Who had in my opinion fuzzy reasons for being anti. As with almost all articles on US Law...
I was explicitly not in favor of SYG in that thread although I was discussing with adamant anti-SYG folks. Who had in my opinion fuzzy reasons for being anti.
As with almost all articles on US Law Enforcement dealing with Black people I can only say W.T.F. America. :(
This is precisely what happened with the Black Panthers in the 70's. "Guns rights" activists were all about all weapons for everyone, but only in a "good for me and not for thee" sort of way. Once the Black Panthers decided that they could carry guns too suddenly gun control was far more important.
You're talking about the Mulford Act from 1967 and your statement is both revisionist and untrue. California's racially motivated gun control actually lead to a massive overhaul of the NRA where nearly the entirety of the NRA leadership was booted out and the whole organization redone from the top down. It's referred to as the "Revolt at Cincinnati". Prior to this the NRA was NOT "weapons for everyone" and the NRA often participated in gun control legislation like the Mulford Act. The post '77 NRA is a different animal as are the firearms owners who belong to it.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/08/revolt-cincinnati-molded-nra-did-you-know-jeff-suess-schism-within-national-rifle-association-led/404628002/
The modern NRA has taken flack for not speaking out on high profile cases involving minorities but its important to note that they don't speak out on high profile cases involving WHITES either. In fact the only time the NRA does speak out is when its involving police being injured. I don't believe the modern NRA is racist, it's just overwhelmingly pro-cop...which is a problem of a different color.
As a "gun guy" I agree that something is wrong in this particular case. The SYG laws that Alabama has SHOULD be protecting Ms. Dixon and I'm stymied as to why they're not. However to use a racist action from five decades ago as proof of modern day beliefs among gun owners is just...disingenuous.
I stand corrected as to the date of the Mulford Act, thank you. But while the NRA did see a change in direction to be more hard-line resistant to any gun restrictions in '77, there was no major gun control legislation for them to position themselves either for or against in '67, with testimony to congress in support of gun control being limited to support of "saturday night specials." As such, claiming that they were pro gun control during the time in question is questionable in its own right.
Anyway, I think that bringing up a way in which historically gun laws and gun acceptability were addressed differently depending on the race of the person in question is entirely appropriate given the current situation in the case of Jacqueline Dixon.
Hold up a second. You're attempting to simultaneously use the Mulford Act as proof that the NRA and its members were anti-gun rights for minorities WHILE trying to claim that the NRA wasn't positioning itself either for or against gun control in the 1960s. You can't have both, either the NRA helped with the Mulford Act and thus it reflects on them or they did not help with it and it does not.
Historically the NRA did support the Mulford Act - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/ and they supported other gun control at both the state and federal level. This includes a MAJOR piece of Federal Legislation called the "Gun Control Act of 1968"! The GCA of '68 is still a primary piece of legislation today in 2018!
http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/
Honestly you know so little of the NRA, its history, and how it works you should probably stop commenting on it.
We agree on Ms. Dixon, based on the article posted something is not right. Either there is more to the story than being reported or there is a serious issue with the police's neglect of the SYG statute in this case.
And, i have a feeling that they tried to nake those laws exclusionary towards everyone but themselves.
This is not entirely accurate. In a lot of ways, the Black Panthers were the instigators of gun-crazed "from my cold dead hands" NRA culture we know today. There's a wonderful episode of the WNYC's More Perfect podcast discussing the history of the gun rights movement and the role of the Black Panthers in it. Highly recommended! https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gun-show/
I think the fact that the NRA hasn't said anything about this (or the death of Philando Castile) shows that a lot of "defense of the 2nd amendment" rhetoric doesn't seem to apply to minorities. Also apparently the laws don't get applied the same. This seems like a pretty much the situation that Stand Your Ground laws were designed for.
Seriously, if you research this you'll quickly find that the NRA doesn't speak out about ANY police shootings regardless of the race or color of the victim. I don't believe the NRA is racist they're just very pro-cop which is also a problem but its not quite the same as being racist.
I have to agree with you on this, something isn't adding up on this case.
That's hardly the only reason that the NRA is racist. Also, the Castile murder is unique from other shootings because other shootings do not so directly pertain to 2nd amendment rights. His death is a textbook example of someone being killed for exercising their 2nd amendment rights responsibly.
The NRA are pro-cop, but they're also pretty goddamn racist too. Here's a sample of racist things the NRA and its affiliates have done in the past. They have a long history of using dog whistles to promote their agenda, they support racist policies and they support racist people.
You only get to stand your ground against unarmed black teenagers sorry its the law.
And even then, only if you're white.
It's not even clear she needs SYG laws here, as she should be protected through normal self-defense laws via the castle doctrine.The fact that she was even charged is pretty egregious.
Ok this makes sense. It will go to trial and she will get off on syg laws. If not then it might be something to get angry about but for now it looks like I legal system is working as intended.
Not really, the other news worthy case the chap wasn't even arrested, although that was in a different state so different laws and officials involved.
I was explicitly not in favor of SYG in that thread although I was discussing with adamant anti-SYG folks. Who had in my opinion fuzzy reasons for being anti.
As with almost all articles on US Law Enforcement dealing with Black people I can only say W.T.F. America. :(