First, everyone needs the Second Amendment. It protects all citizens’ God-given/natural right to self-defense. Second, some people need it more than others. Jews. Gays. African Americans. In fact, if there’s one group that’s suffered directly and demonstrably from losing their 2A protection—as in torture, rape, murder, massacre and political disenfranchisement—it’s blacks . . .
No wonder that the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision (striking down Chicago’s handgun ban) made extensive references to the sad history of gun control’s impact on America’s blacks. So . . . WTF? Why are the very people who need the Second Amendment the most against it?
Writing for dailycaller.com, Kenn Blanchard offers his theory on African Americans’ antipathy to gun rights.
This happens because of conditioning over the past four hundred years. It is a lot like Stockholm syndrome. That is when a victim begins to express empathy toward their oppressor, sometimes to the point of defending them. After the Black Codes were instituted proceeding the Civil War black women lost husbands, and mothers lost sons, just for the act of carrying a firearm. To be found in possession of ammunition, or any parts of a weapon, could mean death by a mob. It was socially acceptable to summarily punish an armed black man. And that punishment ranged from public beatings, imprisonment, work camps, to torture/death. A few centuries of that and every black woman that survived had it in her DNA to forbid bringing a sidearm into the house.
She doesn’t care about the right to keep and bear arms argument. She just wants to save the lives of her children. This fear tactic is still being sold to mothers in the city. She doesn’t believe gun ownership applies to her family. She doesn’t have the luxury of philosophical debate about gun control. She just wants to save her race. It is hard to overcome that fear in the black home where the matriarch often rules and the facts are not there.
It’s an interesting proposition: gun control created a deeply ingrained culture of passivity that stops blacks from embracing their civil right to keep and bear arms. And yet . . .
The founding members of the Black Panthers certainly knew that exercising their 2A rights was the key to racial equality. You know; before CA Governor Ronald Reagan passed a law to trample on their political awakening.
What’s your take? Why do Jews, gays, blacks and other minorities agitate for their own disarmament? What makes them so meshugah?
After years of being told that, “Guns are the problem! Guns are evil! If there were no guns, our babies wouldn’t be killing each other!” their culturally-conditioned response to violence has become that of a 6-year-old confronting a grease fire in the kitchen:
“Uh-oh, fire! I know! Water! Uh-oh, more fire! Well, more water! Uh-oh…”
Repeat until the house burns to the ground.
+1
That and their politicians would never tell them to get their own damn families under control, so they blame all the problems on guns.
White, black, red, yellow, whatever: boys need their fathers or another constant moral, strong male figure in their life to keep them in line. If they don’t have one and live in the city there’s a good chance they’ll be grow up wrong.
I grew up without a father. It’s not a “male” figure that’s needed, its proper well rounded care. Much easier to do with two parents yet my mother provided enough for me and my siblings. Having a father doesn’t guarantee a well behaved, productive citizen. There’s more to it than that.
so you’re the exception to the rule.
I still believe in what michaelB said. There needs to be a mother and a father for a ideal family. Not every situation is perfect, though I attribute the decline in America to the lack of the nuclear family. Just a option of mine.
A lack of moral values, multi-generational dependence, and personal accountability has grown into a huge problem.
I disagree. Having a family with both a mother and a father does not in and of itself mean you have good parents to teach you those things that are considered important to create a productive member of society. It does, however, mean that 2 people who are good memebers of society have an easier time raising a child than does one person. Correlation, not causation.
I agree. there’s no guarantee to not raising a sociopath 😉
The role of parents, however, is certainly undeniably important to the next generation.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-real-problem-with-helicopter-parents-there-arent-enough-of-them/263410/
I used to live in an inner-city urban environment. The politicians I heard talked about personal responsibility and the importance of family. You are right about their view on guns.
Why buy guns when you have powerful legal action groups?
Some people just love big brother. They tend to be the Urban poor; a population dominated by African Americans and the so called intellectuals; a group with many jewish members. I think you will find middle class non urban African Americans very open to gun rights.
Its not Stockholm Syndrome, although I can understand how a non-black person might perceive the subject that way.
In fact the problem is much easier to trace:During the Civil Rights Movement both white and black people started supporting gun control campaigns. Why? Because good people like Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X and others were being assassinated left and right seemingly. Clearly availablily of the guns were the problem, since back then you could even order a weapon directly to your door via the mail. Thus the campaign for civil disarmament began in America during an important period for Black Americans.
Fast forward 50 years, and the legacy of the African American community is gang violence and the drug trade. The latter is the crux of the problem-poor people in the ghetto see that the only wealthy role models around are the dope dealers and gang boss. For the ghetto youth its not a matter of morality, as there’s no one around to teach them that with dad being in jail and momma working 12 hours a day.Its a matter of what they see-and the only people making money that they see are the criminals. So they become one, meet a girl, knock her up, get shot or locked up, and horrible cycle repeats itself onto the next generation. Today dope-dealing is a generational business now-guys slinging today were fathered by people who were slinging themselves.
Amidst all this, the women and family are anguished that nearly every male figure in their social world is being killed &/or locked up. Clearly something has to be done-and they cant suggest more jail time. But if The Government took away all the guns, then Little Ray Ray might not have been shot dead on MLK and 9th street over a drug beef with Pookie Smooth. They’d just go back to settling things with fists, or so the logic goes.
We fix this cultural problem by solving the core-and that means putting wealthy role models in the hood who got money legally. Given the current economic reality of urban America, that means legalizing drugs-Period.
+1000
yup. couldnt agree more. I think it is accepted by a common contention that the war on drugs has made conditions worse for communities like you mentioned.
Sounds easy to legalize drugs. But where do you stop? Many countries have decriminalized marijuana. This has not helped their drug or drug related crime. Netherland has legalized many drugs. Not so great. The medical costs have skyrocketed. GNP suffers due to so many out ot the work force. High percentage of gov. spending is related to legalized drugs. Plus, they still have crime associated with the illegal “hard drugs”.
No easy answers when it comes to drugs, or crime related to drugs.
where do you stop?
thats a easy decision. Marijuana. Enough said.
“Many countries have decriminalized marijuana. This has not helped their drug or drug related crime.”
Citations please? Criminalization of marijuana has also not reduced drug use or drug related crime. Case in point: US War on Drugs.
“Netherland has legalized many drugs. Not so great. The medical costs have skyrocketed.”
Citations please…again? The only source of information about the supposed “crime problems” and “medical problems” associated with decriminalization are from drug awareness “experts”, whose payrolls are funded by the US government.
“No easy answers when it comes to drugs, or crime related to drugs.”
Actually it is a easy answer. The government should stay the f–k out of my business if im not harming anyone or depriving anybody of their liberty. Militarized cops breaching my door and arresting me for smoking a plant in my basement is beyond the realm of common sense and liberty.
Drugs are illegal for a reason. The pinch on supply keeps the prices raised, which benefits certain elements in the US government that sell it in the states; the profit is not only used to fund clandestine operations, but to invest in wall street. It has nothing to do with crime or morality, but money. Read “Dark Alliance” by Gary Webb.
Many countries have decriminalized marijuana. This has not helped their drug or drug related crime.
Now it’s been several years since I did D.A.R.E. in school, but I’m pretty sure there are more drugs than marijuana…..
Saying “They legalized marijuana and still have drug related crime!” is like saying “We banned 9mm handguns and we still have armed robberies!”
DARE. There is another boondoggle. It lets politicians act as if they are doing something about drugs; parents are happy that someone else is talking to their kids (so they don’t have to be hypocrites); and cops get to earn overtime. But there is one small problem: not one study has shown DARE to be effective, and some studies have found the graduates of the program to have higher drug and alcohol abuse rates.
karl LOL!!!
Damn! I have to say that you sound like the most educated on this site. Not only did you state the pure fact of the matter but also stated what most believe taboo. Legalization of drugs. This is so true and history process it so. Just look at prohibition! Alcohol is no different from marijuana. You drink one and eat or smoke the other. Legalization is the answer no doubt.
It seems like the black politicians, on average, want to keep the black communities unarmed.
As far as what income level needs to be armed I agree that the poverty level families in the urban/inner city areas probably need it more than any others.
Or just move outside the city and buy you a couple of home/self defense firearms, practice a lot and pray you never actually have to use it.
Regardless of race or party affiliation the average politician seems to want subjects and serfs, not citizens who stand up for their rights.
As Mel Brooks once said” Gentleman we have to protect our phony baloney jobs”!!!
A population that doesn’t feel victimized does not donate as much to political action campaigns until that population is largely multimillionaires.
Hm… surely that has nothing to do with it.
I don’t doubt that culture has a place in this discussion., I don’t think it’s exclusive to Blacks, Jewish and other folks. I’ve known whites and hispanics who have the same mindset. I have a number of college educated, professional/managment black friends who all own guns and most carry legally.What I have noticed is that the lower income, less educated tend to be liberal rather than conservative and more inclined to seek entitlement than personal responsibility. I realize that’s a broad statement but this blog is full of opinionated folks. That’s not to say that higer educated managment can’t be liberals. Idiocy isn’t limited to income or education.
The problem as I see it is an ingrained persecution complex
and the massive affects of soft bigotry. The persecution
complex arises from a “wo is me” attitude. Though at least
justifiable during times of slavery, mass discrimination etc..
it’s not really an appropriate feeling these says. Many view
these feeling as nothing more than a way to avoid taking
personal responsibility for their actions or inaction.
How many of us have heard “why bother, they’ll never let me
succeed anyway”? If people, especially minorities, start viewing
firearms as an equalizer; it’s a lot harder to continue the
“downtrodden” meme. Programs for minorities do nothing but
reinforce this problem. I look at affirmative action as a way of
telling people that their not good enough to get somewhere
on their own.
So for me, the real reason minorities voluntarily disarm
themselves is based on the need (lack) of responsibility.
Once you accept the 2A, you truly become a free man
but then your responsibility to society skyrockets.
If minorities accept this, they are turning away from everyone
who says they’re not good enough. Consider the way those
that break ranks are cannibalized. That’s how ingrained
these feelings really are.
As a Jew, a conservative, and a gun owner I am at a complete loss to explain the liberal Jew in America. Everything they support equals a direct line to tyranny. For 5,000 years of their history they have fought enslavement and destruction. 70 years ago 6 million were flat out murdered in Europe. Today, I would not waste a breath of debate on them. They have turned into Lemmings, drank the Kool-Aid, and are headed for their own cliff. This of their own free will to ‘be’ the victim !
“You know; before CA Governor Ronald Reagan passed a law to trample on their political awakening.”
There was a lot more to the black panthers than just RKBA, it’s not fair to characterize what Reagan did as either anti 2A or anti black. The panthers appointed themselves spokesmen for blacks and refused to play nice with the rest of us. In other countries they would have been arrested, jailed, and killed. If anything, the US is more tolerant than most countries.
Let us not forget that they walked in the the CA Capital fully armed with rifles and handguns loaded to make “their” point. They put the first major dent in CA gun laws!
No, Californians did by letting those laws be passed. You failed to support people exercising their Rights. I have walked onto the lawn at the state capitol here with a rifle open carried on a sling resting on my shoulder.
Most people who vote Democrat do so because in thier heart they don’t feel they can be responsible for thier lives, they want to be taken care of, hence the Nanny State.
To carry a weapon for self-protection is to directly fly in the face of this belief, which is why most Liberals fear the gun; it represents independence, responsibility and freedom.
To many people of all races, fear these things, which is why we are in the condition we are in today, the growing police state.
It was the worse thing Reagan ever did.
So taking away our auto-guns was ok?
No, the worst thing Reagan did is announce a Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, to signal to racists that he was OK (only one historically significant thing had ever happened there, and it wasn’t a good thing).
Question of the Day: Why Are the People Who Need the 2nd Amendment Most Against It?
Answer of the Day: Fear. When you’ve spent generations looking down the barrel of the gun, you’re not going to lose that fear by being on the other end.
+1
I think that weapon also becomes a symbol of your oppression. Probably makes it so you don’t even want it to exist.
I don’t think the answer has much to do with slavery, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, or any kind of collective social conditioning. I suspect most people really don’t think that way. Even if it were true for racial minorities, that would not do much to explain the general antipathy to firearms of non-racial minority groups like gays.
I think the problem stems from the facts (1) that black folks, gays and Jews historically have tended to side politically with the Democrats (and still largely do), (2) that gun-rights advocates historically have tended to side with Republicans (and still largely do), and (3) especially as our politics have become more polarized, that many people tend to use party affiliation as a proxy for thinking about the issues, as in: “The other side thinks this is a good thing, so it must really be a bad thing. I oppose it!”
That will continue to be a problem for the pro-RKBA cause for so long as pro-RKBA groups continue to join themselves at the hip with the GOP. If we want more minority-group members to join us, then there needs to be a more concerted effort to separate this issue from other right-wing talking points.
For all they good they do on this issue, the NRA utterly sucks at that kind of outreach. 2AF seems to do a much better job, IMO. TTAG also seems to do a pretty good job overall. There are exceptions, though, and many of the comments posted around here are unhelpful on that front (to say the least). We can do better. Assuming that certain people are “just that way,” labeling or treating them as enemies, and/or declaring them to be a lost cause is just self-fulfilling prophesying that accomplishes nothing.
There are pro-gun Democrats.The problem is they’re overwhelmed by the sheer number of anti-gun Dem pols. If they want to reach out to “the people of the gun” they need to clean up their own party.
I agree with the first two sentences, but the suggested “clean up” effort will continue to be effectively impossible as long as those efforts would be perceived as trying to get Dems to switch parties. With very few exceptions, there are precious few Dem-friendly, pro-RKBA resources. Anywhere. I don’t think it needs to be that way.
The problem with being a pro gun dem txdadoo is that the national level leaders of the dems are anti gun. Difi, pelosi, boxer, the clintons etc.
so saying that you’re pro gun and a dem is sort of like saying you’re pro choice but donating money and votes to pro life candidates.
Only if you’re a single issue voter, jwm. I’m not. (Also not a Dem, FTR.) It’s more like being a gay Republican. There are plenty of those, despite the the fact that the GOP platform is a pretty seriously anti-gay piece of work.
Then convince Dems to stop picking anti-gun politicians.
The real problem is this: collectivism, statism, welfare liberalism, it’s all incompatible with personal liberty.
Txdadoo, well said!!
I grew up in Boston and no many people I know own guns. In fact, a friend of mine was upset that I bought a gun magazine. So when I thought of people with guns, it’s usually the bad guys. And so when I think of gun control, I see it as keeping THEM, the bad guys from getting guns. It’s nearly impossible for someone living in Boston to get a gun legally anyway so stricter gun laws wouldn’t affect me much.
But when I moved to KY and was able to buy, own, and carry a gun(s), I started to see stricter gun laws as limiting MY ability to get guns rather than the bad guys’. And will fight vehemently to protect MY rights.
So the reason the people who most need it are against the 2nd amendment is because they were never allowed to exercise that right to begin with. Like those who live in CA, NY, MA, NJ, MD, DC, IL, etc. They can’t miss what they never had.
I think this is the biggest factor. When a person has never owned firearms, owning and carrying one is not in their mindset: the only application that comes to their mind are criminals and police officers. And that association is wrapped in the palpable fear of an armed criminal pointing a gun at them, which is an incredibly strong negative association. In case it isn’t obvious, reversing a strong negative association is very difficult.
I live in MD and I can exercise my 2nd Amendment in respect to a lot of other states. I can buy rifles/shotguns and bring them home the same day. The only regulated guns (not banned) are handguns and certain “black rifles” but only those that were known about back in ’94. PS90, FS2000, Vz-58, SCAR, SIG-556, non-grenade cut-out AR’s, and others are treated the same as any other rifle with no waiting period involved with all the bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and flash suppressors I desire. 20+ capacity mags are legal to possess and I have a safe full of 30’s and 40’s. The only restriction is carry which is a PITA but I would rather live here than NY, CA, IL, CT, MA, and NJ.
People in urban environments are inundated with anti gun messages from tv, movies, and newspapers a lot more often than rural Americans. When the average city-goer grows up seeing guns being held only by police, soldiers, and criminals a gun in anyone else’s hands is going to seem alien. NYC, for example, is all they know. So they think the rest of the country they haven’t even seen should be just like NYC in every single way.
The sad thing is Hurricane Sandy just tore the 5 boroughs a new one and those dim witted subjects will be crying for Papa Bloomberg and the NYPD to come save them. It’s what happens when you spend life being handed things rather than working hard to earn them and have personal responsibility for your own well being.
I was discussing this very point with my wife last night. The root cause of the aversion to guns is the belief that the government will take care of things and prevent bad things from happening to you. The same person who is anti-Second Amendment is the same person who did not get ready for Sandy. They think that if they need somehting in an emergency the City will provide it — food, shelter, rescue etc. They don’t understand that even the best of governments can’t help you all the time.
The JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) has observed that the three most traditionally anti-gun groups in America are the same three groups that perceive themselves (right or wrong) as victim cultures. The groups are blacks, Jews, and women.
Why Jews Hate Guns
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/why-jews-hate-guns.htm
The adamantly anti-gun-rights Jews are bowing to:
1. A desire for utopian moral purity
2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,”
crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based
behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome
7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion — Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior
I believe “A desire for utopian moral purity” is also a strong factor. If a person desperately wants peace (utopian moral purity), by definition they cannot own and carry a gun: doing so would be admitting that peace is hopeless.
Now add that to the people whose mindset is that only criminals and police officers have guns which creates a strong negative association to guns … getting them to even consider owning a firearm much less carrying one is next to impossible. Sadly, even being the victim of a violent crime isn’t enough to awaken such people.
This is the reason why I am a member of the JPFO.
Here in California it works like this.
The African American community, protests over violence in the streets. They demand that the police do something.
When the Police step up and kill a known felon with drugs, and a gun in his possession, they protest again. This time because the Police killed there wonderful angle of a kid.
You can’t win. They want someone else to take care of them, raise their kids, and take responsibility for everything. I see the projection of blame behavior in my children as well. I am working hard to break them of that habit.
exactly right! i couldnt have said it better.
they want to have their cake and eat it too
I believe I read an article about that in csmonitor.com (Can’t find the link anymore, but maybe because it is a couple of years old). If I remember correctly, the Dutch government started to reconsider their open policy to Marijuana because of unintended consequences. Namely people coming in from other EU nations to partake in it and causing trouble, which is why the overall crime rate did not drop like they thought it would. They passed laws to limit marijuana sales only to Dutch residence, but I don’t know how successful or unsuccessful that is. Generally I am Libertarian by trade, so legalizing Marijuana (at the very least) I don’t have a problem with. That said, I never touched the stuff, and probable never will. On the other hand, I am aware there will be unforseen consequences that need to be addressed.