2A rights and racism
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2016 6:35 pmMany other people have noted this, but I don't think anyone has here, so I might as well:
So far this year, there have been several cases where Black people were preemptively shot by police, for maybe possibly carrying a gun, in states that allow concealed carry. Regardless of what one thinks about firearms, that's 2A material. "My husband got shot for legally carrying a licensed firearm" is the kind of thing the NRA should be shouting from the rooftops about. But all we got was some incredibly weak-ass weaseling in the Philando Castile case, and I haven't seen jack shit about the more recent ones.
I know the NRA is not exactly popular here, but that should be food for thought.
Likewise, I think a lot of 2A stuff is subtly racially coded. I never see current 2A advocates talking about the right of Black Americans to bear arms, so that they can defend themselves from predatory white supremacists, or from persecution by state and federal govt. people. (Plenty of talk about Christians doing the latter though, even though govt. persecution of Christians for being Christian basically doesn't happen.)
But I do see a lot of talk about people defending themselves from would-be armed robbers, rapists, etc. And the US has this thing where Blacks are assumed to be criminal, and to prey on whites (despite lots of statistical evidence to the contrary). So one starts to wonder about the color of the supposed assailants' skin, in such hypothetical scenarios.
... But yeah. Point is: if you're going to be a 2A advocate, you need to give credence to armed Black resistance against white supremacist violence, otherwise you're basically being a hypocrite. If you're going to talk about standing up to The Man, watering the tree of life with the blood of tyrants, etc., you have to admit that the Black Panther Party was doing basically that, even if you're not in agreement with them.
So far this year, there have been several cases where Black people were preemptively shot by police, for maybe possibly carrying a gun, in states that allow concealed carry. Regardless of what one thinks about firearms, that's 2A material. "My husband got shot for legally carrying a licensed firearm" is the kind of thing the NRA should be shouting from the rooftops about. But all we got was some incredibly weak-ass weaseling in the Philando Castile case, and I haven't seen jack shit about the more recent ones.
I know the NRA is not exactly popular here, but that should be food for thought.
Likewise, I think a lot of 2A stuff is subtly racially coded. I never see current 2A advocates talking about the right of Black Americans to bear arms, so that they can defend themselves from predatory white supremacists, or from persecution by state and federal govt. people. (Plenty of talk about Christians doing the latter though, even though govt. persecution of Christians for being Christian basically doesn't happen.)
But I do see a lot of talk about people defending themselves from would-be armed robbers, rapists, etc. And the US has this thing where Blacks are assumed to be criminal, and to prey on whites (despite lots of statistical evidence to the contrary). So one starts to wonder about the color of the supposed assailants' skin, in such hypothetical scenarios.
... But yeah. Point is: if you're going to be a 2A advocate, you need to give credence to armed Black resistance against white supremacist violence, otherwise you're basically being a hypocrite. If you're going to talk about standing up to The Man, watering the tree of life with the blood of tyrants, etc., you have to admit that the Black Panther Party was doing basically that, even if you're not in agreement with them.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
