• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Pretty much every gun law we have is/was rooted in racism. The picture above is what started California’s crazy gun laws. Armed blacks!? In my streets?!

    Here’s a gun law you’ll love! In Alabama you have to apply to the county sheriff for a conceal-carry license. Told my friend, “Good thing you’re a middle-aged white guy. That’ll be a rubber stamp.” Meanwhile, in Florida, now that we no longer need a license to carry, the state sent mine 4 years after applying. Uh, thanks, I guess?

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Yeah, the Black Panthers inadvertently spurred Reagan and the NRA to author the Mulford Act, which was (at the time) the most restrictive gun control law in the country. Yes, the same Reagan that conservatives put on a pedestal as a paragon of conservative values. Yes, the same NRA that lobbies congress to relax gun control laws in the wake of school shootings.

      It’s because people realized that peaceful unarmed protests got violently busted by cops, but peaceful armed protests were politely watched from across the street. When lawmakers saw a bunch of armed black people on their front doorstep and saw the police were totally unwilling to stop them, they got really fucking sweaty really fucking fast. And so the Mulford Act was born, as an attempt to strip black people of their guns and prevent them from organizing armed protests.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Everybody hard and wet over all these guns until they get in the hands of the marginalized.

      “Oh, people using the 2nd amendment how it was meant to be used? Can’t have that, nope. Get that constitution out of my face. Fuck the constitution.” - Americans

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Commenting, as always, to say that’s not how the 2A was meant to be used. That’s a modern interpretation. Read it for yourself. It’s clearly talking about having militias ready to fight an invading country, as was standard practice at the time. Standing professional armies were unusual, especially for newly formed small nations.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Well I just think that whole part about “being necessary to the security of a free State” could be speaking about foreign or domestic threats.

          And god fucking damn it I can’t find a SINGLE useful webpage on the original text of the 2nd amendment. Fuckin’ pissing me off lmao I swear this happens any time I try to find something about the constitution, it’s a god damned mess lol

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Really? This is the site for amendments (for now at least). It’s the second result when I search. Second to Wikipedia.

            I can see the argument for what you said, but it pretty clearly isn’t the primary reason, looking back with a historical lense. It also specifically says “well regulated militia” which definitely does not refer to people with no training who never use their weapon having one in their house. Usually a militia would store their weapons in a central place and would also train to be ready when called. The individual storage and ownership thing is not the expectation historically.