Oh What a Tangled Web

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis

All things lose meaning without context so lets attempt to put some context into the debate over “gun control”.

The origins of repressive firearms regulation.

Throughout my research of gun control regulation, one thing has became increasingly clear; the gun control laws are more about control than guns and carry strong racist overtones.

After the, “Nat Turner Rebellion“, in 1831, Virginia prohibited free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…” The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks.

In 1834, a change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence,” to: “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” Just one year previously the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee.

In 1843, the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:
That “if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.”

The North Carolina Supreme Court also sought to repudiate the idea that free blacks were protected by the North Carolina Constitution’s Bill of Rights by pointing out that the Constitution excluded free blacks from voting, and therefore free blacks were not citizens.

I could go into a litany of States that restricted the rights of Blacks (even free Blacks) to keep and bear arms both before and after the Civil war. The methods were both direct and indirect requiring fees or approval of state or local authorities.

In 1911, the State of New York enacted the “Sullivan Act”. Named after
“Big Tim” Sullivan, a politician and organized crime boss and part of the Tammany Hall political machine that controlled a corrupt New York City and its police department (and thereby the future Pistol Licensing Bureau). He also owned the Hesper Club, a successful gambling establishment on the lower east side.

By writing the law, Sullivan provided himself several advantages. He could, guarantee his body guards could be armed, guarantee his opponent’s body guards would not be armed and use a corrupt police force to arrest his opponents for violations.

Tammany Hall Had been dominated by Irish-Americans since the 1850s. In the late 1800s a wave of Italian emigrants started to settle in NYC and by 1911 became serious competition, politically and criminally, with their Irish counterparts. The Sullivan Act was used as a club to prevent Italians from carrying firearms. As the early Italian Emigrants were prone to favor Republicanism, the political machine of Tammany would keep them from political power and off the police force, (and attempt to keep them unarmed.)

Many contend, as do I, the Federal “Gun Control Act of 1968″ was actually passed to control Blacks and not guns.

Anti-gun journalist, Robert Sherrill, wrote:
“The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.”
–(The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)–

After this point in time the “gun control” paradigm shifts as in becomes politically incorrect to racially discriminate and gun control laws start to ban guns and ammunition for obtuse, stupid or outright dishonest reasons.

The Truth About Disarmament – Why Guns are a Must

A lot of people these days are hyping up the negative results of guns – mass shootings, people who “crack” under the pressure of their lives and decide to commit suicide and bring others with them. We are told that the drug problems in Mexico are caused by American guns – while in fact, the problems have existed for years and have been entrenched through the corruption and bribery of Mexican Police, elected officials, and even the Military. What these proponents of anti-gun legislation fail to remind us of, is what happens when the guns are taken away? What happens when governments achieve the complete disarmament of their people?
A brief look into history should enlighten many on this subject. In the early 1900′s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people. All of them are known as some of the most sinister men in history. Notably, Hitler could never have achieved as much as he did without civilian disarmament. He disarmed his people, used the Hitler Youth program to brainwash the young, and “cleansed” his nation, as well as conquered territories of the “undesirables,” whom he referred to as “untermensch” or subhuman. The unarmed civilians were an easy target for his armies, and the SS was used to intimidate and control other Germans and prevent dissension. In retrospect, people lament the atrocities that happened under Hitler, but the German people then never saw it coming. They had been seduced by a charismatic leader, who convinced (and when necessary coerced) them to give up their weapons.
Some would say “oh, but this sort of thing could never happen in America.” To some, disaster is always “over there” far enough away that they can stay comfortable in their bubble of ignorance. Once again, a short lesson in history is enough to dispel that notion. In the very earliest beginning of our struggle for independence, there is an incident known as the “Blockade of Boston.” It is not well known these days, as it is inconvenient to the liberal cause to allow our schools to teach history accurately. The Blockade of Boston started with disarmament. The occupying British forces required disarmament in exchange for safety, then blockaded the city and refused to allow anyone to leave. Fortunately, the American revolution started, and the people were freed from the oppression of the armed British.
Some may further object, that since these incidents, mankind has come a long way, and that we no longer need to be concerned when the people are disarmed. The story of the Katrina disaster area survivors disagrees. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, gangs, thieves, looters and vandals overran New Orleans, as well as the other affected areas. To defend themselves, the residents banded together to form militia groups. The police and national guard went in, with orders to disarm everyone. They entered the homes of local residents at gunpoint, demanding the weapons. Sadly, these people surrendered their weapons, and were then left defenseless as the police and national guard went away. Once they were gone, the gangs and looters came back. The disarmed people were unable to defend themselves. Many were robbed. Some were killed.
Chaos, and enslavement are the natural consequences when good citizens give up their weapons. These are the reasons that guns are necessary in a free country. There will always be armed men, whether criminals or military that use their weapons for evil. The only safety is in ensuring the right of good citizens to arm themselves accordingly for their defense.

Contributed by Steven P.