A leftist's views on gun and race politics

I am sure many who read this will have their own view on the whole gun debate … and that is fine, everyone is entitled to their own view, and that is that. If you disagree with something I have said, that is fine, we can merely agree to disagree, … as with all of my pieces, I encourage debate between viewers and commenters .. so comment whomever you wish, I just ask that you remain civil and not get into name calling and other childish antics

I was bored so starting looking through the “ontheissues” website to compare the views of several politician on a series of issues, and when checking my email, and previous pieces I did on guns, I decided to do this post on my gun views and discuss some race issues, and political issues with respect to gun ownership… some of the stuff listed below are questions that I got in my email address [any sociopolitical questions or ideas for me to write about just email my username on here @gmail.com and if I think it is a good topic I will write about it] and some are questions I got from friends as I let them read this..

As with all of my pieces, this piece is just about my views and I do not speak for anyone else that may have similar ideological views to myself with respect to liberalism and progressivism, nor share socioeconomic views to myself such as fellow democratic socialists.

Starting off, I do not think that there is any secret of my politics from those that read my stuff that I consider myself a liberal, progressive and democratic socialist which are ideological and socioeconomic views..

Here is a list of some questions I have gotten, and in general some things I wish to discuss. – I may be copying some of the things I have said on guns previously from other pieces that I have posted on this site.. [all of which will be linked to below]

What is the dumbest comparison you have seen by left or right when it comes to their wants to guns
One of the dumbest things I have seen, and even myself been accused of by one woman whose child was killed by gun violence, she stated that my opposing gun bans means I want more children to die because that is what more guns will do.

Yes, factually, more guns on the streets means realistically you may have more people using them, but when you have less than 1/1000 gun owners who use their guns to shoot themselves or someone else, and 99.9% of gun owners that will never use their guns to shoot themselves or someone else then to me the issue seems to be individual with the gun and not the gun themselves.. so the dumbest comparison or reasoning with respect to this woman, and that I have heard from several other liberals and more left people are those who are against gun bans just do not care about kids..

Disagreeing with your point of view does not mean they have no care.

I know the person said “or” but I will just say “and”
I saw a video on conservative Star Parker’s page, [if you google, never again campaign, Star Parker the video is the first thing that shows on top…

Anyway, in the video, it says those that argue for background checks, something I greatly support,

It says in the video “A call for background checks invokes painful memories of Jim Crow and black codes”

This is one of the  dumbest comparisons that I have seen… one, the black codes were different by state, but some states banned blacks from owning guns ..just because they were black.

Saying background checks, saying ALL people, regardless of race must go through a background check before owning guns, where everyone, regardless of race that meets the local standards then they can get a gun.. background checks does not discriminate by race, and it does not bar blacks from getting firearms so comparing it to a law which states that blacks cannot own guns just because they are black is one of the dumbest comparisons I have seen.

I may agree with her with respect to my being against gun bans…

Now, we can speak to race with respect to the judicial system and the unfair treatment of minority groups as  I have spoken of in a previous piece but to say background checks would invoke painful memories of a time when….blacks could not own guns at all… especially since most blacks that are alive today were either very young or were not born from the 1860s when the black codes were written – the 1960s civil rights movement and Jim Crow South…

So, I think her point of why she is against gun bans and the history of gun barring to certain races is a factor as to her opposition, but to say background checks will invoke feelings of a time before most people were even born [1860s black codes] or when many were either not born or quite young [1950s and 1960s civil rights movements] is a rather weak argument.

What made it even more stupid; is that on the website she has a list of six other black conservatives who are against …background checks. One of the men says his son was shot with an assault rifle by someone with a criminal record right in front of his home. While as I said I am against gun bans so I am also against “assault rifles” being banned… what got me is, I am not naïve enough to think I you have background checks that everyone will go through legal means to get their gun but.. if you at least have this in place, it will lessen the likelihood from someone with a criminal record getting a gun as the FBI website says, more than 700,000 people have been denied guns because of criminal background, mental health issue etc.. so while it may not stop everyone, if it can stop one, a few thousand or whatever - - while still not banning the guns then I see no real reason to be opposed to background checks.

CRIMINALS WILL NOT FOLLOW THE LAW SO WHY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!
I hear this often, and .. that is also a dumb non-ideological argument I have heard. The fact that someone may not follow the law so why have the law?

You know… we have laws against murder, and people still murder - - so we should get rid of the homicide laws.

We have laws against rape, and people still rape – we should get rid of that law.

The law is not there to just hinder .. it is there to prosecute. If you have no law against homicide, then by definition they cannot be “breaking the law” and by extension homicides would be legal.

If you have no laws for background checks, then someone who makes death threats, recently got out of prison with violent history etc.. will get a gun with ease. The point of a background check is not to stop each and every person who would not qualify from getting a gun .. it is to at least curb some of those that would try to get firearms through legal means and would not be able to do.. which I think would then discourage many of them from seeking further - - will not stop all of them but.. hey, some is better than none.


this was a question I got a few weeks ago that I answered in email because other than a short “no” I had no real answer
Do you think everyone who advocates for gun control are anti the constitution?

The short answer is no..

The first amendment of that very constitution allows them the freedoms to voice their views, and you have the freedom to challenge their views if you do not agree with it

YOU ARE BLACK, IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THE HISTORY OF GUN CONTROL, YOU WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL
Thank you, sir, for pointing out that I am black.

I am well aware of the history of gun barring to blacks in this country, with respect to the 1860s black code, to Reagan and his Mulford Act which was nothing but a law that would disarm the black panthers of his state.. yet where have I, or has anyone ever seen me call for gun bans.. the idea that I am not for the wild, wild, west style of you can buy whatever gun you want no matter who you and/or what you may suffer from – if this is what it takes to be in favor of gun control then you can keep it.

As paraphrased from Bobby Seale, funny that in American history there was never a law barring the ownership of firearms until the black man noticed that he had that same right.. and then you noticed all of the laws barring this and that group.

He also said, when marching to protest the Mulford Act being passed
“take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”

Here is an official that spoke of the black panthers marching to an airport armed.
diva.sfsu.edu/collections/sfba…

What I found most interesting from this, is he admits that they broke no laws..  see, this is it, you know the laws around gun, you abide by those laws - - so they change the laws to make what was previously legal – illegal.

Remember, the NRA supported the Mulford Act of 1967.. and now they act as if it was not their pouring a ton of money to help get it passed by the great, right wing hero Reagan who argued for it… is somehow what liberals did and that the right never supported such a thing..


With respect to guns specifically, I am for a universal background check, which yes, I know that it will not stop every felon from getting a gun but if it can at the very least make it just a bit harder for them to do so then I see no issue with it…. An NICS background check takes just a few minutes to run …

Something not exclusively gun related is a stronger mental health system…
If the person is maintaining themselves on their medications then these are not the individuals that I am speaking to. I am speaking of those who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others and trying to ensure that they cannot just walk into a store and buy a firearm.

I am also speaking of the stigmatized nature of the mental health system, where many who choose not to seek help because they feel that they will be seen as weak or whatever if they ask for help.. but I have already written previously on the mental health system.


blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page…
Adam Winkler when speaking to this paper, showed how the modern right wing gun advocates, honestly got its start from government trying to keep guns from more leftist groups..


Would you consider yourself  Anti-NRA like most libs
Well as I always say, I only speak for myself.. I cannot nor will I speak for what “most libs” are for or against.

While I have no plans on ever joining the group, I would not consider myself “anti-NRA” and I am sure there are certain things that, modernly, I can agree with them on.. mostly on being against gun bans.

I know plenty of NRA members and I would say they and I share similar views, they have no issue with background checks, and that is what I do not get why the spokesman of the NRA which often speaks of “bad guys with guns” …and yet is against doing exactly what would stop some “bad guys” from getting guns so easily..

Do you think the Assault weapons ban should be reinstated
It will first have to be repealed first, assault weapons have been banned since the 1930s … what we mostly argue over now are not assault rifles, they are semi auto weapons, assault weapons are fully automatic weapons which are pretty much already banned.

Now, if your question is would I be in that minority of people who would have no issue with the 1930s ban on assault weapons being lifted, no, I would not..  for the same reason, if 1/1000 people are doing something wrong I see it rather illogical to then tell the 999 other people that they must suffer as well and that the issue is the tool… not the individual who used the tool to hurt someone.


Why does anyone need an assault rifle
No one needs one.. they need food, water and basic medical supplies to “survive” technically …

But of course, the issue is more of a want than need, I would be all in favor of looking at banning if 70..80.. 90% of all people who owned these guns for some reason did something wrong with them.. but when less than 0.1% are actually utilizing their guns to shoot someone or themselves, then the issue is not the gun.. and honestly even if 70…80..90% of people did something wrong with the gun then I am sure I could write a persuasive argument as to the issue is still not the gun or else all who owned it would have done something illegal with it..

First and foremost for protection, if anyone has ever fired a weapon you would be amazed how much more accurate the “assault rifle” as the media calls it is [though accuracy is more so dependent upon the person firing the gun than just the gun .. the most accurate weapon in the world… will not make the world’s lousiest shooter hit the target]

But also because they are “scary looking” no one, in general, wants to have to shoot someone so if you can scare them off merely by showing your gun, that is a plus and let us be honest… a snub nose revolver is small, so someone from reasonable distance would not see it until they are quite close..

Of course for home protections shotguns are always good as well… no gun sound is as familiar to most people than the shotgun being loaded and readied for fire.. that sound is familiar and the shotgun in general is a very powerful weapon capable of doing a lot of damage to an attacker….

But pass that, some people just like the idea of shooting, and like target shooting, shooting competitions which happen all around the country for many types of firearms and while for some people this may not be their idea of fun or hobby, if no one is being harmed then I see no issue with it…

Then some people like to collect these kind of guns, and hey.. have at it. I am sure I may get the BUT THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH REASONS AS TO WHY YOU NEED IT!!!!!!!! Comment as I did when I posted this on another site I am one for friends only viewing but.. yeah.

What do you think of firearms insurance
I have heard about this, and honestly I do not really see the point of it.

I mean, if your gun is used and you accidentally shoot a window or something.. I am sure, that is if you are a dick and say I SHOT YOUR WINDOW BUT I AM NOT PAYING FOR IT!!.. that if the person merely files a police report and takes you to small claim court to show that you are responsible that the court will order you to pay anyway …

I admit, on firearms insurance, this is something that I perhaps can be persuaded to be for or against, but from what I hear about it from the very people on television that advocate for it.. I have not really heard a persuasive enough argument as to why it should be mandated eh .. but if someone actually reads this and is for firearm insurance, I would be more than happy to see and look closely at your reasons why and may comment that either you have persusaded me or reasons why you did not persuade me.

Are you familiar with Colion Noir?
I wasn’t but when you asked me and I said I would google him. I did get to his youtube page, and did enjoy some of his videos, of course I only watched like 2 or 3 and I agreed with what he said in those three,

But, he says he is against the Manchin-Toomey bill, stating of course most people are for background checks – now ask them if they are for the national gun registries that are needed for those universal background checks…. Which is factually untrue.. right there in the text

Politifact rated Obama stating “A bipartisan background check amendment "outlawed any (gun) registry.  Plain and simple, right there in the text."
www.politifact.com/truth-o-met…

ACLU has also spoke of this, and said that the amendments would make it nearly impossible to get a gun registry in the future
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p…

Huffington Post reported that the bill makes even trying to initiate a national gun registry a felony carrying over 10 years in prison
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04…

As a fact.. and .. dude.. anytime someone brings up Hitler when trying to make their point eh.. godwin’s law … just saying

So, if he is against universal background checks, that is fine, but not with using what has been reported as false..


While he works for the NRA, I saw another NRA video posted by Dom Raso saying, if you are for background checks, what if you accidentally lie on the form… you can face federal charges! .. so somehow this other guy tried to make the point that somehow if you lie on a form, and face charges for lying then that is why background checks is a bad thing..

www.atf.gov/files/forms/downlo…

there is the federal firearms form when buying a gun… The questions are pretty straightforward so I am a bit unsure how can someone “accidentally” lie on these forms, but even if you did accidentally lie… on the form and as such you do not pass the background check, the licensed dealer will just not sell you the gun, and if it is something you did not know about, you .on your own can go to the courts and get whatever the issue was cleared up..  I am pretty sure you would know if you were convicted of a felony - - and if someone used your name, or had the same name as you then it is not as if the store owner will keep you there as the ATF or whatever come to the store and arrest you.. so as stated, if this is the case, you can go to the courts and get this cleared up.

Another thing echoed by, Mr. Raso, is that since a background check will not stop all criminals from getting guns then it only hinders responsible gun owners… another argument that I have heard and merely laugh at.

www.nationaljournal.com/congre…
The NRA is no stranger to previously being not only for, but vocally endorsing some previous modest reforms such as background checks and such


What I found when googling for the form of Form 4473 is that some people believe this will lead to a national gun registry,.. I have said plenty of times I am opposed to a national gun registry by the federal government and another reason why I was a bit of .. confused when they so came out against the Manchin-Toomey bill which would have made such a thing not only illegal but carrying over a decade in prison .

I am sure there could be some reform to the Form 4473 system, such as I am a bit unsure why they have to keep the form for 20 years,  so I would support decreasing that … to what number I have no clue.


You claim you are Pro-gun ownership and yet you are for background checks which would hinder the ownership of guns, the founding fathers would be against background checks

I shall tackle the first part, and then the second.

Yes, I am all for gun ownership of law-biding citizens who are legally allowed to carry guns – violent felons in even the most conservative of states are not allowed to carry firearms – yes, a background check may say that this individual, according to the law is not allowed to carry firearms, and as such they may be rejected - - that does not mean that because I do not want someone with a history of rape, robberies, etc to have a gun that I am against gun ownership.

I would also doubt that the founding fathers would be against background checks. I will answer this, but first, I would say I always  hold some reservation when discussing what the founders would or would not be against, I do not think these were stupid men and if they could fathom a gun that could shoot 6,000 rounds per minute, I am pretty sure they would have had some procedure in place.

Now, during the American revolution, most of the colonies already had laws against “loyalists”  owning firearms. The text of the 2nd amendment was not a mistake, a well-regulated militia referred to the free males, 18-45 who were conscripted to state militias, and had to swear loyalty to the revolution  - - those not willing to swear loyalty to the revolution, and instead swore allegiance to King George III and against the revolution, were greatly restricted in their gun ownership.

Of course, if the founders had some technology that would say this person is a loyalist, thus enemy of the revolution could not have weapons - - and of course even freed blacks were not allowed to own firearms, or even join the conscripted state militias - - while some blacks did fight in the revolutionary war - - do recall that after the war, states aka colonies like Massachusetts and Connecticut barred all blacks, slave or free from military service.

In the Militia Acts of 1792 whereby they conscripted all able bodied white men to state militias and mandated the minimum amount of firearms they were obligated to obtain – several states aka colonies barred free blacks from gun ownership and those not willing to swear allegiance to the revolution from owning firearms. So the idea that the founders would be against anyone being barred from owning guns is factually and historically false..

I saw you posted a quote from the former NRA leader, what was it and what do you think happened to the NRA

The quote I posted before was from the head of the NRA in the 1930s, when the NRA basically backed some of the restriction measures on firearms, especially during the 1934 National Firearms Act, which banned or strictly regulated certain firearms, most notably automatic weapons ..

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"
Karl T. Frederick
President of the National Firearms Act

This was said and introduced as testimony at the House of Representatives hearing before the Ways and Means Committee in 1934

What changed over the decades of the NRA, was the 1977 during what is called “The Cincinnati Revolution” Before this the NRA in general had been more about shooting competitions, hunting and general conservation .. but during the 1977 Cincinnati convention, a more hardline group within the NRA had defeated the leaders of the NRA at the time, and these people took more of a 2nd amendment absolutist stance as we somewhat see today.

After this “revolution” you saw the NRA get more involved with lobbying and conservative politics and since the late 1970s, especially during the 1980s you saw them take more and more hard lined positions on the second amendment an now being against things they once not only supported such as background checks and assault weapons bans.. but now going against and opposing these things.



Simunition
I would love if simunition was made a bit less restrictive. Simunition is simulated ammunition, or bullets that are similar to paintball gun bullets, but fit several types of firearms, they break apart on impact and leave a mark similar to what a paintball gun would.

These nonlethal rounds are generally only available to military and police force for the purpose of training.. for the most part it is rather difficult for your average citizen to have access to these unless they are active military or law enforcement. I would like these to be made available  to the public … or rather more easily available to the public due to their realistic firing from the firearm that you will be using…


Do you think Democrats that advocate for stricter gun laws should all be thrown out of office
I would say no, I am not a single issue voter, I am sure for some people, if someone is against guns that alone is enough for these people to vote against them. I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican.. on firearm issues I may agree more with Republicans on, on social and economic issues, I may agree more with the democrats on.. so I do not think they should all be kicked out of office but I would like for them to make less emotional and more statistically backed proof on why they are for assault weapons ban and such.

What I find a bit funny somewhat is, pistols account for more than 60% of all shootings and yet nothing is done there… and “assault weapons” particularly “assault rifles.. aka semi auto rifles” account for less than 1% of all shootings and this is the gun they want banned.. so a bit of a disconnect there…


What do you think should be done to decrease school shootings
I was actually asked this on another site given my view or rather my general opposition to gun bans.

With respect to a stronger mental health system and background checks which will not stop each and every person that should not have guns from getting them it would at the very least stop somewhat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_…
We see going back to the 1700s we have had school shootings in America, so I am not naïve enough to think there is something we can do that will stop each and every school shootings in the future.

I am also opposed to the idea of just arming all teachers with guns and somehow this will be the all to end all. I have said that I am greatly in favor of increasing security in schools, and training the guards the proper way to lock down a school and minimize casualties if something arises.

Merely arming all teachers, would just means millions of more guns in schools [if you figure according to the Institute of Educational Services that there were 3.7 million full time teaches in America - nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.… ]

So while this may, if a shooter enters the school perhaps increase the chances that they will not harm someone –  thousands of teachers have already come out stating that they will not feel comfortable carrying a firearm around, and would not want one in their classrooms – so will we just fire all teachers that do not want to carry a firearm around the school.

So I think a safer, and alternative that will get more parents to agree are just to have better trained security guards.. . and these guards should remember what they are there for, not to make the school like a mini prison .. but to protect them the best that they can.

… um.. no clue
I got an email question asking, since Edward Snowden released documents showing that Obama had a detailed plan to ban all types of firearms, do you think Obama should be impeached?

Since this is in the realm of guns I decided to add this..
I have seen many stories that Snowden has released, but I admit ignorance, I have seen no story not even on conservative sites that said Obama had a detailed plan  to ban all types of firearms – if someone reads this and is familiar with this story I would appreciate a link or something to read up on it.

If the story is true and a sitting US president was attempting to ban the owning of firearms from all citizens no matter what then yes.. they should be impeached.

Note, I am aware that Obama does support the assault weapons ban, I may not agree with him but.. being for an assault weapons ban, which the supreme court has uphold does not violate the constitution is a very far cry from banning all guns for all people..


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


I am unsure what else to write out so if the few people that usually read my stuff have something else, or some other idea for me to add onto this in the realms of gun politics stand alone, or race issues with respect to gun policy … then I may add onto this at a later time…

As always comrades…
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
-Emanon