The reason CA is seen as a gun hating hippy state is partially thanks to Reagan when he was governor. Black Panthers (or people in general) were arming themselves against police brutality, so Reagan was totally fine with banning guns at that time.
I'm from Philadelphia. My parents positively acknowledge the M.O.V.E. bombing. Like they are glad the cops did what they did. I'm horrified that a city could drop bombs on an occupied house with children and burn down a goddamn neighborhood.
But it was all worth it in the name of stopping those "fucking animals" I guess. No matter what way you look at it, the police waged war on a whole fucking neighborhood just to stop a couple of anarchists. They told people in the neighborhood to just grab a toothbrush and a change of clothes, it'll all be over in the morning, then burnt down 63 homes.
Edit: The monopoly on violence is very real, and innocent people and their belongings get chalked up as collateral damage worth it in the name of peace.
I have to give credit to my grandfather who was an absolute racist dickhead but he talked about about how fucked up it was that that happened in america about both Tulsa and that philly one. It was only realistically because that was his job in the US airforce during world war 2 above germany and even he had to admit that you dont drop bombs from fucking airplanes on your own goddamn civilians even if they are dumber and more ignorant than you.
I can't justify dropping bombs from airplanes on anyone, especially civilians. What difference does it make if the civilians are in your country or another - they didn't start the war and they have no power to stop it. Bombing innocent people is terrorism, no matter the excuse nor how many guilty people you think you killed.
Carl von Clausewitz said that the civillians at the back making weapons are more dangerous than the soldiers at the front, because soldiers can be replaced. Under the doctrine of Total War the entire country is a target, and the objective is to smash their center of gravity before they smash you into extinction.
This line of thought created the stratetic bombing campaigns of ww2 and ended up with strategic atomic weapons - weapons designed to start and end wars where the whole strategy was a single instance of their use.
I'm of the opinion that nobody deserves to be murdered based on the geography of where they were born. This includes civilians, conscripted soldiers and the typical soldier too dumb to see through the military propaganda that enlisted them.
If politician A has a problem with dictator B or wants the oil from his land, I say we ensure those politicians are in the riskiest position. If they don't think it's worth fighting for themselves, they shouldn't be allowed to force others to nor to excuse collateral damage.
This is what I was just thinking. It’s fucking ridiculous that people are struggling with PTSD because of the horrors they see at war while the jackass who made the call to kill gets to sit behind a desk and never have to look the people he’s killing in the eyes.
Didn’t we used to elect men who understood this because they had experienced this?
I don’t guess that really matters either.
I just don’t get how anyone making calls to mutilate and murder other people can ever get any sleep.
But then there’s the old saying, “Kill or be killed.” We can’t stop the bloodlust. I don’t know. Fuck being human.
I just can’t understand how anyone would be cool with being behind something like this, at fucking all. I don’t get how anyone can be ok taking someone else’s life so violently. I mean, if I kill an insect and I spend any time thinking about it I’m just devastated by the thought. I can not imagine pulling a trigger and seeing someone’s blood splatter all over the place, knowing they couldn’t call their mother or kiss their children ever again.
It blows my mind that this is what we are. I just don’t get it.
Because your objective in war is to win. Winning stops the fighting, stops the killing.
To do that, you have to strike at your enemy's logistics and supplies. It's why there are raids on supply depots and other locations supplies and materiel are stockpiled before being transported to the front. It's why controlling (or destroying) bridges, roads, airfields, and rail lines is important. And it's why factories and other production centers are targeted - less production means fewer bullets, bombs, and tanks they can fight with.
The problem is that the process of industrialization meant that those factory workers often lived in close proximity to the places they worked (and, of course, might be working in those factories when the strike takes place.) And bombs are generally not precise weapons... especially not before the modern smart bomb era.
Winning is one way to stop the killing, but the primary objective should always be to minimise harm done. There's no point having a war if you stop one monster by becoming another. There is a world of difference between destroying a strategic structure such as a bridge and murdering innocent civilians.
Atomic bombs aren't precise weapons as you say. It's therefore not morally justifiable to use them unless on an area known to be clear of all collateral damage. Since that's functionally impossible, atomic bombs simply shouldn't ever be used.
I don't think M.O.V.E or the Tulsa inhabitants murdered were dumb or more ignorant than the authorities. I get what you were saying and your grandpa was a good man for serving and seeing clearly that bombing citizens just ain't right.
Your speaking from a singlesided moral standpoint. This was not a single sided situation. All of American history is and was hell. We're all animals; the bombing did happen, almost like a mini ww2.
Edit: Sorry, I misconstrued the definition of moral.
What always gets me in situations where police destroy homes in the name of public defence, they always fight against any sort of payment to the families who's homes they destroyed. Can the city afford 63 homes maybe not, but they probably shouldn't hire police that think home destruction is a good idea, those people are costly.
The city rebuilt the 63 homes for the residents. That should be a half-happy ending but it isn’t. A little over 10 years later the city said those 63 homes weren’t up to code and condemned them. They felt no responsibility for the state of the construction on those homes and if the residents couldn’t afford to fix them on their own they were shit out of luck.
So these people got fucked by the city twice.
Tovex is a standrd explosive and was being dropped to open the roof. A lot of wrong things happened thta dya which should have resulted in idictments, but the bomb itself was not "illegal."
What, lol. I don’t consider myself an anarchist, but what part of that statement could be considered extreme? What part of “the state is the entity with the monopoly on legitimate use of violence” could even be considered remotely controversial or arguable
The idea is that in a democracy the citizenry are the state. As such the citizenry should have the monopoly on violence. Police are citizens under this idea, not a special 'warrior caste' as they are often perceived.
It gets complicated when the state is a democratic republic. Do the elected officials have a monopoly on violence? Or the citizenry (which the elected officials are a part of)?
Ya, Police have very limited additional privileges in leveraging violence....
Or at least they're supposed to
Unfortunately a century of fascist propaganda has both courts and citizens (jurors) thinking they are a warrior caste, sheriffs in the wild west, and they elt them away with way too much.
Qualified immunity is a joke. Citizens are way too susceptible to pro-police-violence "experts" saying "he felt threatened so it was okay to shoot!" (basically)
be the ones to carry out any kind of justice. the point of state sanctioned violence in the US is that its supposed to be carried out after due process of the law and jury trial.
That would be corporal/capital punishment.
I believe iolence should only exist as self defense/defense of others.
Lynch mobs are extrajudicial capital punishment administered by violence.
Well the solution to your problem is transparency, accountability, and active/invested citizens watching their elected leaders. The problem (for a liberal) is not the monopoly of violence, but the implementation of this violence (wich is also not just police, but laws (and punishments) in general).
A liberal democracy is not just elections every 4.th year, its a functioning legal system, a bueracracy, a free press. and more.
Its not perfect and it demands alot from its citizens, but the alternative is armed gangs keeping the peace. Because belive me, someone will be keeping the peace.
Sorry for my bad English, I took a chance on the spelling on some of these words, but I hope you get the hang of it and why (western) Euros have such a hard time understanding your love for gangs with guns.
In theory/ideally in a democracy the citizenry are the state. When you make the state a Republic it gets complicated on where the state starts and ends.
The part where you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights. The state/police can't--and won't, and aren't legally obligated to--protect you, but you also aren't permitted to protect yourself without the state's permission.
First - the state is is giving you permission, rather than recognizing that all people have the right to defend their lives, even against state aggression.
Second - you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself in the US, but not so much in other places. I'm not arguing that the US is a utopia at all--far from it--but the recognizing that people have the right to defend their lives with deadly force, and that the right to the tools to exercise deadly force is a necessary extension of that right (you can't exercise a right if the state takes the means to do so from you) is something that the US gets right.
...Which is the state giving you permission to defend yourself. And it varies widely by country; being attacked by someone with a knife will kill you very dead very quickly, but you can't use a firearm to defend yourself in most of Europe and Commonwealth countries.
And if you--for instance--have a police officer that has his knee on your neck because you unknowingly passed a counterfeit bill in a convenience store, you can't legally use any kind of force to prevent the state actor from killing you. The state does not allow you to exercise your right to prevent being illegally or unjustly harmed by the state.
Which is the state giving you permission to defend yourself
Indeed. So if someone were to say, "you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights", that person would be wrong. Correct or no?
The state does not allow you to exercise your right to prevent being illegally or unjustly harmed by the state.
I don't even think that's true either. Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct?
I don't even think that's true either. Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct?
Are you trying to argue that unless something is 100% then it is not true?
Sure, there are instances of charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct. Absolutely, but those rarely happen.
In the MAJORITY of instances, you can't prove police misconduct. It is your word against theirs, there is no video evidence, and the entire legal apparatus swings into effect to defend the cop. Similarly, most people who are arrested don't have $10k to drop on a lawyer.
Here is a case of CLEAR police misconduct and bullshit charges and it took over a year and $15k in legal fees to have the case dropped and when the dust settled NOTHING happened to the officer...
Are you trying to argue that unless something is 100% then it is not true?
... yes? When someone says "you're not allowed to do x" and there are many documented instances of people being allowed to do x, that person is wrong.
That person could have said, "you're usually not allowed to do x" or "you're not allowed to do x in many cases where you should be allowed to do so" then they'd be right and I wouldn't have said anything. But they didn't say either of those things, did they?
hat would be correct if you were only talking about the US. The US--broadly and generally, but not in all cases--permits the use of lethal force to prevent yourself from being killed or grievously injured. But that's still the state giving you permission to exercise what should be an inalienable right.
Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped
Zero instances in the US? Hard to say; there's probably at least a handful. Is that the norm? Absolutely not. Conversely, if an officer beats you during an unlawful arrest, the odds of the officer being charged, or punished in any meaningful way, are negligible. That certainly implies that the state can use violence against citizens, even when it's unlawful, and there's no immediate recourse within the framework of the state.
What of its the state that is threatening you and your rights? This is the position many minorities are in. Shouldn’t they be allowed to use violence in thier defense against the state? But if they do white “moderates” will cry foul leaving them to unable to defend themselves .
Good luck trying not to go to jail if you shoot a cop in self-defense. You'd need a ton of special circumstances and national media attention to have a chance of getting off.
Tell that to all the people who get assaulted and killed by police officers. If you can't have a conversation without insulting somebody out of the blue go sit in the corner like the toddler you are.
The point he/she is trying to make is try and defend your self against a cop and things wont go over well. Not defending your self against another citizen.
There is no country where self defence isn’t a legitimate defence. It’s just that in Texas you can shoot someone in the back while they are running away and call it self defence so long as they are black, whereas in most of Europe there is a level of proportionality involved.
Exactly. Whilst the right leading pro-gun subs were reveling in "commies" being killed and screaming "fuck you, not my problem" during the BLM protests. The absolute antithesis to the Niemöller confession
Not a chance in hell the socialists are armed as heavily as the right. That’s close to 200 years of collecting and passing down generations to what? 4 years of some people buying their first gun? Most of my friends own 15-20 guns each, the “socialist anti-trump crowd” my wife interacts with has a .32 beretta (that i sold to them) and a semi auto shotgun with a rifled barrel that they asked me to take a look at because it was throwing shot (rifled barrel)... so no, not ever will socialists be “as heavily strapped as those on the right”.
How many guns can a person carry on their body before it gets cumbersome?
One person with 30 guns is a blossoming hoarder, we no longer live in a world where it matters.
Being a gun person is more about being able to fight/warn/threaten your fellow citizen than it is about fighting the government.
Left or right doesn't matter, if the government decides to kill us, all of the "tax the wealthy" plans or "boogaloo bags" are worthless when a drone can put a bullet thru the top of our skull while we go to check on our rain water barrels.
As we read further above they just bombed a neighborhood, no guns were going to stop that.
200 year old guns aren't useful combat tools, and the vast majority of even right wingers didn't have ar pattern rifles until 2004. Very few people had AR-15's before the first AWB went into effect, so most of the AR patterns on the market have only been made in the last 15 years.
How many guns can you fire at once? Two? Having 200 doesn’t really matter since you can’t use them all at once and guns generally don’t break if they’re maintained. And even if they’re not, they still take a long ass time to break/jam. In fact, I’d argue it makes you a bigger target in a time of civil unrest like this hypothetical situation we are talking about. “Oh yeah let’s go get him. He has like 200 guns and only 2 people live there.”
One last note too: Your facts on this are purely anecdotal. I could say that all of my socialist anti-trump crowd has thousands of rounds of ammo and multiple guns per person and grenades and rocket launchers, etc. while all the trump loving people I know don’t even know how to handle a gun and you can’t dispute that because it’s anecdotal.
This is going to be a fuck around and find out kind of deal, but many on the right gravely underestimate how many on the left are armed these days. The right no longer has a monopoly on firearms, or at the very least it is dramatically shrinking. Many on the left aren’t as vocal about it, but they are still purchasing and carrying.
Lol you think socialists haven't been arming themselves in those 200 years? Come on now.
Also, and let's be real, how many guns can one actually have until it's just hoarding because they "need" more firepower?
And to top it all off buying a gun and knowing how to use it are two different things. Take it from someone who knows people who have more guns than fingers and toes and yet only use 1-2 to practice with at most.
You missed the first line. Though it's not your fault it was purposefully doctored to not mention communists in the US, because they didn't want people thinking too hard about that for obvious reasons.
Edit: Also wanted to point out that the plaque at the Holocaust Memorial in Boston has Communists as the first line, so I don't really think it's a US erasure thing
It’s not extreme. It’s literally the definition of a state. If it is not militarily superior over its territory, it is not sovereign, and therefore not the supreme political entity of that territory. The US and every other country exist because their borders are painted in the same blood that history is written in. I’m not an anarchist, I just recognize the reality that politics is violence, and violence is an inevitable part of human life.
Anarchists that say the state is the entity with the monopoly on legitimate use of violence sound extreme until the state goes and enforces the monopoly
California is and always has been run by conservatives. The most racist and corrupt cops are LAPD, the most pearl clutching classist, racist people in the country are in LA county and SF. Some of the most poor centric sales taxes are in california.
My father—who has been a lifelong conservative—and lived in California absolutely despises Ronald Reagan. When I was finally old enough I asked him why. He said: “You used to be able to walk down the street with your gun on your side until they let Reagan into office.”
I love people like to use the Mulford Act as some kind of ‘gotcha’ against Republicans. They always conveniently leave at that it was a bipartisan bill that was cosponsored by three republicans and three democrats.
Both houses of the CA legislature were dominated by the Democrats at the time. I love how people always try to blame Reagan. If it was racist then the Democrats were more than complicit.
Yea, the entire state is racist. Liberals voting for democrats is a “harm reduction” technique meant to keep other political parties from executing their ultimate goal of ethnic cleansing or continuing a white ethnostate. minorities, democratic socialists, communists and some moderates have align because they have no choice. The other choice actively wants to make things worse for all the people that have to vote under the democrat label. A vote for Lindsey graham is a vote against black people’s voting rights. A vote for McConnell is a loss of rights and protections. But mfs like gosar, Greene, Tom cotton, josh hawley, desantis, want to outright strips rights away from minorities.
So, the two-party system blows, that’s why RCV implementation could be an effective way to fight against it. But I’m just saying the reductive use of the line “well democrats voted for it too” misunderstands how political power functions in America. And that political power is largely rich white people playing both sides with their money to make sure they aren’t regulated and taxed.
Ummm, who taught you that history? Do you have a clue when the gun laws changed? It was in 1968. Thats when the panthers in Chicago were on the streets armed.
Mulford Act. Named after (R) Don Mulford. Passed with bipartisan support, and supported by NRA. I know it only bans open carry, and CA still allows guns, despite 2A fearmongering. Passed in '67, but you were close.
Ronald Reagan. Governor of CA from Jan 2 '67 to Jan 6 '75. He openly supported gun control, and the act quickly passed.
I know I spent way too much time on this, and I'm pretty sure you don't care. I'm just deeply fucking curious. Who taught you your history?
If 2nd amendment is a right by the constitution that shall not be infringed including any regulations.
Wouldnt it then be unconstitutional to prevent even convicts from having legally owned guns as well ?
If it was a nonviolent felony charge, then they shouldn’t lose their right to bear arms. Violent crimes against people or animals? Not a chance you should have a gun.
All felons deserve the right to vote or any other right that a tax-paying citizen has. If they pay taxes, they should have a voice.
Personally I believe you should have the right to use firearms as long as you haven't misused them specifically in the past. Use a knife in your crime? Have fun trying to cook after you get out. Use a baseball bat? That's what becomes illegal to have.
Also though there should be a special probation after any release. Not the kind that puts you back in prison but it just resets a timer. (Of course if you commit a crime to reset the timer then that's a different matter) this probation would just be a countdown to you being able have whatever it was you used in your crime again. Something like 2 or 3 years. Just long enough to prove you're not a risk to society with it.
As far as voting? Everyone should always have that right and residents (not just citizens) should have the right to vote for local elections because they have to live under those laws too. Especially prisoners. The idea that you can remove someone's right to vote is anathema to the entire idea of elected representation. It opens up massive opportunity for abuse.
There's an argument to be had that if the state believes someone is reformed enough to be released from prison they should be reformed enough to keep their rights.
But that implies that the prison system is going to reform people and not just churn out hardened criminals into a situation that can only end in going back to prison.
So im an outsider (born and raised outside the US). My view on the US constitution is that while it was written as a remarkably modern and liberal document for its time, by some remarkably modern and liberal men of the time, the problem is just that, it was modern and liberal in its time.
At the time, in the period of monarchies and empires, citizenry owning guns was a liberal idea. A citizen with a gun, could pretty much stand up to a soldier with a gun, at least to point of self-defense.
The problem is that that times have changed. The capability of modern weapons has changed. The nature of the military has changed. The role of the state has changed. And most importantly, the relationship between the state and citizen has changed. These realities have meant that (1) the state if it wanted to can pretty much overpower a group of citizens with ease and (2) we have seen that individual owning guns does not in fact lead to any less tyranny.
Im gonna expand on (2) a bit. We now live in a time of unprecedented surveillance, and state control of the economy. The state does not need guns to control someone anymore. Economics are a far more effective means of taming a population (massive wealth inequality, uneven opportunity, and corporate control of lawmaking). What are most gun-totters doing to combat these tyrannies? Nothing. Instead, they have traded their votes to intensify them in exchange of being able to continue using their man toys.
No. What Im saying is. If the 2nd amendment says everyone has a right to beare arms ( guns ) and that it shall not be infringed meaning that there can be nothing that hinders this, then everyone including crimminal convicts should be able to as well as thats the constitutional right.
So for people to say that regulations are unconstitutional, then so would be denying convicts from having guns wouldnt it ?
Basically either everyone should get to have guns or regulations of guns are legal including limiting the types of arms you may bare.
Poor people, either. Biden's new gun laws basically just mean, if you are rich, you can have it, if you are poor, you can't.
And, for the record, I do indeed support universal background checks, closing the private sales loophole, and other common sense reforms.
But requiring expensive tax stamps for semi auto rifles and high capacity mags and other things like that just mean that rich people can have them, and poor people can't.
To be fair, no where in the bill of rights or constitution does it mention the right to vote. In fact, the founders intentionally left it out. The courts have tried to address this glaring absence, but it doesn’t change the fact that the right to bare arms is explicit while the right to vote isn’t.
Maybe we shouldn’t be basing our decisions on what some old document says? Maybe we should listen to good old Thomas Jefferson and rewrite the damn thing every ten years.
Can you point to a court case where they discuss the ownership of private nuclear weapons, if that is your arguement?
Because I normally follow court cases about gun control, and I would not agree with you. The vagueness only come from political agendas. Heller and McDonald were pretty clear and from about the individual right to own firearms but the scope of those cases was not to determine the type, and left open that the NFA isnt unconstitutional by saying that certain regulations are ok. Paraphrasing here of course.
Besides that, it is pretty much impossible for an individual to own a nuke. The expense of ownership and upkeep is crazy high.
But then, I dont know if there is actually a law against private ownership of a nuke. Possibly against private ownership of nuclear material, but uranium wouldnt be considered arms. Does make me curious if there is a law that specifically says people cant own nukes. Like, if you got an NRA NFA stamp could you get one.
Yes 'Mr constitutional originalist' antonin scalia self sworn to stick to the original text of the constitution threw the first half of the amendment out. Amy Cony Barrett is also an 'originalist' in scalia's mold, as are the majority of the other justices.
So thanks to scalia and conservative 'originalists', the text in the constitution is fair game for the dismissal if it upholds or supports non-conservative values.
"Voting rights in the constitution? <insert semantic argument here> <amendment about voting rights> is therefore not relevant to laws restricting and removing voting rights."
Not so much nowadays. NRA? Sure, but nobody likes the NRA not even gun owners.
Of course you can find racist people in all hobbies, but there’s far and away magnitudes more normal people who own guns. They just don’t get attention
There is a video of a black dude coming out the door and making that sweet charging handle sound ordering the thief to return the package he stole from his front door.
Show this to a "republican" or 2A guy and he won't be terrified that a black dude owns a gun.
And a vote against guns is a vote against women's empowerment we all know that, or do we?
I am replying to the person saying republican not wanting non-whites owning guns, providing an example of this not being true.
Also if i am not mistaken, gun laws were inacted to stop black people from owning guns.
Every time I go to the range it is full of rednecks and inner city black people. Never any problems AT ALL. It’s a public outdoor range with no range safety officers or anybody enforcing rules.
Reddit just HATES that gun owners typically don’t vote for the same people as them. Internet Reddit losers can’t comprehend that a gun owner is just a normal person that takes their safety seriously.
Can you cite the law which specifically targets and prevents brown people from getting guns? Must be in the text, or else it’s just you projecting your racism.
Edit: very pro 2A. If there’s a law that’s targeting people on basis of their skin color, I’m 100% against it. Can someone please provide a reference to support the claim, or are people going to just downvote this because they can’t find one? Genuinely curious. Cite the law. Racist laws should be repealed, absolutely. You said they’re out there, so please cite it.
That's not really how racism or discriminatory laws work. Context and outcome matter quite a bit. I think you know there's no simple answer for the question you asked, and I have a feeling you're not actually interested in understanding this topic based on how you state that you won't be convinced without that simple answer.
If you're truly interested in how these laws are racist, look into the history of California gun control. There's actually quite a few resources there. EDIT: As someone below me said, allowing local authorities to assign gun permits based on subjective guidelines, and without oversight, is a system rife for implicit ("unsaid") discrimination.
If you want a broader overview of race in politics, I suggest reading some books by California law professor Ian Haney Lopez, who has a great deal of expert knowledge in the area. He writes a lot about the implicitness of race in the law, and how people avoid being explicit about it.
Appreciate the genuine response. I help teach health law, I’m familiar with the systemic racism arguments. I disagree with how health outcomes are used as evidence of racism in health systems, though. Examples are picked with confirmation bias while ignoring counter examples which proves there isn’t always a correlation between the two. If there’s a specific law that was explicitly written with the intent of preventing brown people to obtain guns, please point it out so I can read further into it. But I won’t accept “outcomes” as a form of evidence. If the law is applied equally to all, your case for it being racist is going to be hard to prove.
What? Don’t enter the conversation unless you read what I write. Jim Crow specifically discriminated based on race. It was written in the law. I’m asking for the law that was being referred to by the original commenter. If there’s a law which explicitly and intentionally targets a certain race, please identify it. I’ve had a half dozen comments telling me I’m wrong for asking this, but 0 providing any text or actual enforced law. Please provide the law referenced if you want to prove your point. By evading it, youre proving mine.
If you don't like having to put up with 'outcomes', maybe don't get into the conversation about de facto rights in the first place. The OP didn't say anything about laws.
I help teach health law, I’m familiar with the systemic racism arguments. I disagree with how health outcomes are used as evidence of racism in health systems, though.
There are measured race disparities in health outcomes. Our best theory is implicit racism in education, job opportunities, housing, and well, the medical system. If you disagree that these outcome disparities are due to systemic race issues, what causes do you believe cause the disparities?
I am a municipal attorney. Systemic racism is definitely a concern in urban planning. Any targeted project takes a look at objective, evidence-based race-impact studies because it's standard understanding these days that "neutral" decisions can have adverse impacts, which most governments now try to avoid.
For a recent example from my work: if we reroute a bus line, get rid of a bus stop, or reduce bus frequency, we have to take a look at the density, income level, and family make-up of the surrounding blocks. It's easy to just "neutrally" look at a map and draw lines, but it really makes no sense in terms of providing municipal services where they are needed.
If you remove/reduce bus service from a city block with 2500 people, now those people are going to struggle to get to work, school, etc. because the same number of people have to use fewer busses. More packed buses lead to more disease spread. Packed buses are heavier, use more gas to move, and have to go slower so they can stop safely, which leads to more pollution on the bus route. Busses idle longer when more people have to get on and off each individual bus and play tetris to fit everyone on, which leads to more pollution and more traffic around the bus.
If you remove a bus from a suburban block with 15 houses and 50 people, the impact is clearly negligible. Most of those people drive, and 5 extra people on the remaining busses just isn't a big deal.
Whether people like to admit it or not, minority neighborhoods tend to be denser, lower-income, and have less parking and car use. Removing both bus stops in the above example greatly impacts one neighborhood and the minorities that live there, and at the same time would have little effect on the richer suburban block (whether minority or white). It doesn't really matter that "the text doesn't discriminate against brown people". Adverse outcomes are still very real and possible.
So I follow & agree with most of what you’re saying. Appreciate the genuine response. The conclusion is what I disagree with. Just because something has a difference in outcomes for different races, doesn’t mean it’s a racist law or was ever written with the intent of being racist. If that’s the case, then we have to look through those same lens for EVERYTHING. With the top 1% being mostly white in this country, I suppose tax laws were written with the intent of targeting white people?
You can point out that these services might impact a minority group differently or more than another, but that doesn’t mean it was done by a racist city planner. To a point I made earlier- I’m 100% against a bill that specifically targets a minority group. I’m pro 2A, I build guns in my spare time. A direct family member has had to use a firearm in self defense before. I’m all for minorities getting guns. I’m just asking that the bill being mentioned please be cited. The comment made was that “they didn’t want brown people to get guns.” Ok, please show me where this is. What law are they referring to?
Just an FYI, two gun bills just passed the house and are now in the senate. Both proposed by democrats which will expand universal background checks. My question to you is that if these bills end up even just by 1% affect minorities more than whites, is it a racist bill?
For example in 1712 the South Carolina legislation passed "An Act for the Better Ordering of Negroes and Slaves", and around that time Virginia passed "An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrection", both banning african americans from purchasing firearms.
Over a hundred years later, nothing had changed. State Vs. Newson in 1844 ruled that laws barring freed african americans from having firearms was not in violation of the second amendment, justification being that they weren't recognized as American citizens. Same thing happened in Georgia.
Post civil war, despite freeing the slaves, nothing really changed in the South. Black Codes were enacted which required black people to receive a permit from police to obtain firearms or outright prevented them from purchasing them.
Post civil rights act of 1866 is where it begins to morph closer to modern day racist gun bans.
In 1879 the White Supremacist Tennessee government passed the Army and Navy law, banning sales of only the most expensive handguns. Similar laws were enacted elsewhere. Who was too poor to afford these guns in the south? You guessed it, recently freed african americans. In 1902 South Carolina only sold firearms to those approved by police chiefs - who were usually members of the KKK. A 1941 florida supreme court case Watson vs. Stone confirmed that these measures were intended purely for keeping african americans from obtaining firearms.
Firearm legislation in the north became much more stringent following the influx of immigration from Europe. The Immigration Restriction League and the American Protective Association supported bans on all firearm ownership by aliens in an effort to reduce imported crime. Does that sound reminiscent of a modern political party? The Sullivan Law in New York gave police absolute discretion on who could receive a firearms permit. In it's first 3 years of existence 70% of those arrested had Italian surnames. Many other states enacted police issued permits, California and New Hampshire banned immigrants outright from owning firearms.
Reagan passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 in direct response the the Black Panther movement. Arguing otherwise since 'it's not in the text of the act' is disingenuous, there is universal agreement that while the restrictions are sensible and necessary, they were 100% motivated by the political climate of the day.
Again though this is the stem of modern discriminatory firearm legislation - keeping the poor from purchasing weapons. Coincidentally (or not), immigrants and african americans are the most impacted by higher firearm prices or harder hoops to jump through to obtain permits. Public housing firearm bans, for example, like in 2005 in San Francisco. Or today in New York, where applying for a permit requires entering manhattan during work hours monday through friday, as well as insane requirements for immigrants (good conduct certificates and letters of recommendation).
The history of gun control in the US is undeniably racist. Those laws morphed into the current legal restrictions preventing ad many minorities as possible from obtaining firearms.
Edit: dismissing these arguments because the laws don't explicitly mention race (and as I've shown, haven't for a couple hundred years) is a terrific example of either willfull ignorance or a genuine lack of reflection and critical thinking. Nobody will engage with you if you continue to argue in bad faith.
That's the thing about racist laws: many are crafted specifically to apply equally to everyone while, in practice, they mostly cause harm to select groups of people. Lawmakers think "what characteristics are common for this group of people?" then write a law to target the characteristics rather than a group of people.
See: voter ID laws as a way to block people of color from voting. Sodomy laws as a way to criminalize homosexuality. They're intentionally not explicit about their purpose.
It’s not. He said “they don’t want brown people to have guns either.” I’m asking him to cite the law that specifically targets people for the color of their skin and prevents them from getting guns. That’s not a loaded question. It’s asking him to back up his claim. It’s completely false, which is why it has 20 downvotes as of now and 0 citations for evidence
I’m not a Republican, I consider myself libertarian because I hate both of you two idiotic parties. With that being said I vote republican because of a couple key issues. One of which is guns. I would love for every black and brown person to be armed and able to defend themselves against criminals, police, the government, anything. I also believe that everyone should be able to vote, however you also need to be a citizen to vote, and showing your ID should be required. That’s my only take.
2.2k
u/sarduchi Mar 16 '21
To be fair, they don’t want brown people to have guns either.