"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system
but too early to shoot the bastards. "
I know what racism is. I have been schooled over the years by men and women far more sensitive to the vibrancy of racist opinion and action. President Barack Obama has been a teacher on the principles of codification sensitivity. He even offers his grandmother as an example of the typical "white person". Former President William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton has comforted me in acknowledging his support for his wife over current President Obama does not make him a "racist". The Right--the only time this term of affection can be applied to him without offense--Reverend Al Sharpton is the icon of sensitivity to the concepts of discrimination and prejudicial thinking. I have learned that applying higher moral standards to a benevolence is certainly a racist connotation. Even locally, an apostle of ethnic solidarity, Council-member Marion "Shep" Barry, has been a pillar of scholarly consult on the mistreatment and division of men based upon natural selection of color. Fully understanding the atrocities of pride and prejudice requires to draw upon the rich, astute observations of liberal men and women that have excelled at the highest levels of society. Liberals, amazing that all are leaders within the Party of Jefferson and Jackson, have an affinity for turning a blind eye to racism and segregation either in establishing modern public policy or retelling the misfortunes of past public policies. Shrewdly, we must consider that human beings act and think according to the merits of the self-interests. In the present debate over the power of an Imperial President that seeks to rewrite the Second Amendment, it would be a "sin and a shame"--reference to my typical black grandmother, Mary Dismukes--not to add a conservative viewpoint to the balance of debate.
I imagine your first mind whisper is, "Why is gun control a race thing? Can't we talk public safety without bringing race into it?" I wish such noble causes were as simple as "doing what's best for the kids". However, since the Democrats voted "God" out of their Party, I must analyze and comment based on the values and the facts that Conservatives and Liberals can agree upon. Actual History should be one of those paradigms upon which we can agree. Prior to the United States Constitution, an inhumane institution known as slavery existed. Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco. Apparently, a Dutchman ran out of food and could not find a McDonald's. He exchanged his slaves for food.
By 1619 Jamestown had exported 10 tons of tobacco to Europe and was a boomtown. The export business was going so well the colonists were able to afford two imports which would greatly contribute to their productivity and quality of life: 20 Blacks from Africa and 90 women from England. The Africans were paid for in food; each woman cost 120 pounds of tobacco.
Wow, logistics! The Africans were worth a trip to Burger King and each woman was worth 30 packs of cigarettes. "Smoke 'em if you got 'em." For the sake of convenience, an ungodly institution is introduced to the Colonies. Desperation breeds the innovation of exploitative economics. The ordained luxury of an elite few becomes the eventual disjointing of a Nation over time. However, let's not advance to far in this narrative.
How did our Founding Fathers know that slavery would eventually destroy itself. The inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the womb to the tomb, every man, woman and child longs to live without hostile intervention. Every man, woman and child longs to achieve success in their vocations and seek to be profitable to their families and their communities. They also understood that God ordered mankind to Master all that He created and not each other. People would never individually seek the confines of personal property or succumb to ownership of our person without revolt. Past Virginia Assemblies, in order to secure a less volatile workplace environment, outlawed the ownership of guns by less desirable groups.
“Prohibiting Negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. (Los Angeles Times, To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control, January 19, 1992)
“That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” Race-based total gun ban. [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)
The laws are a mere sample of slave codes, black codes and economic based gun bans used to disarm Black Americans and other less desirable groups from 1640 to present. However, such legislated restrictions did not stop abolitionists ("white folks and others" for those following along at home), or the slaves themselves, from seeking a violent overthrow of slavery. I introduce the Westmoreland Plot of 1687. Nicholas Spencer, unveiled an alleged conspiracy among "blacks" to "kill white people and destroy property". This was different from the Gloucester County Conspiracy (1663) or Bacon's Rebellion (1676–1677). It was the first time in British North America that no white person supported or participated in such an activity.
"Come listen all you galls and boys,
I'm going to sing a little song,
My name is Jim Crow.
Weel about and turn about and do jis so,
Eb'ry time I weel about I jump Jim Crow."
In 1828, Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice, a struggling "actor", created the character “Jim Crow”. The character represented highly exaggerated behaviors and stereotypical expressions attributed blacks. Jim Crow is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s. Rice portrayed blacks as entertaining fools. White audiences couldn’t get enough of the exaggerated performances. Dr. David Pilgrim, Ferris State University Professor of Sociology, asserts: “Rice and his imitators, by their stereotypical depictions of blacks, helped to popularize the belief that blacks were lazy, stupid, inherently less human, and unworthy of integration. During the years that blacks were being victimized by lynch mobs, they were also victimized by the racist caricatures propagated through novels, sheet music, theatrical plays, and minstrel shows. Ironically, years later when blacks replaced white minstrels, the blacks also "blackened" their faces, thereby pretending to be whites pretending to be blacks. They, too, performed the Coon Shows which dehumanized blacks and helped establish the desirability of racial segregation.” While the exaggerated portraits dehumanized blacks, I believe slavery's insistence that some humans were not entitled to be governed by natural laws established the degrading period of Jim Crow in America. Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens.
From the French Black Codes to the District of Columbia's Martial Law induced Gun Control, there has been a concerted effort amongst tyrants, progressive or those seeking merely to radically transform America, to separate citizens from the guns. The Constitutional Rights Foundation reports that during World War II, “The link between white supremacy and Hitler’s ‘master race’ could not be ignored. Jim Crow shocked United Nations delegates who reported home about the practice: Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills. It raises doubt even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” Why? There is no justice for government to rule the lives of men if men can protect themselves. What is more greatly distressing is, after fighting Jim Crow for over 100 years, that Blacks, once banned from observing the Second Amendment, have no problem preventing citizens from owning and possessing self-defense tools. Even arguing that it is the tool itself, not the criminal that upsets the balance of peace in homes and businesses, that threatens the peace of the inner-city. Do they not remember the efforts of Florida and North Carolina to separate the gun from the blackness of men. Florida Supreme Court Justice Rivers H. Buford, in 1941, ruled on the state’s gun-control laws (Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2nd 703), stating, “The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers into the state... The Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers... The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population, and in practice has never been so applied.” Why do men and women whom pride themselves as modern civil rights leaders sound the same arguments in their defense in weakening the protections of men? “Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner? We don’t want it … ,” DC Councilwoman Yvette Alexander said during a hearing to control permit access to conceal carry guns in the District of Columbia. It's amazing how much more comfortable we are promoting "recreational marijuana", the gateway drug to hardcore narcotics for so many addicts. The government recognizes there is an industry in drug treatment and the City has a considerate and willing supporter of such operations: taxpayers. A government that cares enough to protect men that do evil unto themselves is this same government that denies men the right to protect themselves from those that would do harm to themselves and their possessions.
Slavery and human trafficking yield a binding conundrum of trade, economics, immigration, politics and Faith. A Nation that morally challenges the ability of the State to determine life and liberty for the many and the few and the right of man to own, possess and protect his individual property is destined to see its end in tyranny and corruption. It is the Constitution penned by our Founding Fathers that, as fully as modernity can contemplate, observed and acknowledged the freedom and liberty of men given by God. Clayton Cramer, in his landmark essay The Racist Roots of Gun Control, writes, “…gun control historically has been a tool of racism and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a ‘suspect idea’ and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law that they use with respect to a law that discriminates based on race.” Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” author, reminds us that it is not the Courts but the Voting booth that will cease the Left's fervent interests of replacing the Bill of Rights with a Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, it is Jim Crow that many Metropolitan Areas "Civil Rights" leaders have been persuaded to enforce. Having marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., the once oppressed have become the oppressors in gun control legislation, executive offices that hound military veterans and law abiding citizens and human rights activist courts.
President Obama is facing one of the greatest repudiations of a progressive agenda since President Jimmy Carter's loss to President Ronald Reagan on Tuesday, November 4, 1980. During an After-Shellacking Press Conference on November 5, 2014, President Obama said, "To those of you who voted, I hear you. To those who didn't vote, "I hear you too." It is a sign that the Ideologue-in-Chief is deaf to those that spoke with power in the voting booth and cognizant of those that silently threaten the sanctity of the Constitution with radical rhetoric from Ivory Towers. Here's a message that we should all be able to agree upon:
It is the Right of Free Men to
Defend Their Life, Liberty and Property
from Threats both Foreign and Domestic.
The one thing that we can agree upon is that the Second Amendment is a barrier between power and powerlessness, victor-hood and victim-hood and liberty for all and liberty for an elite few. However, to whom shackles will be adorned when considering our founding documents, the best solution is vigilance in the voting booth and producing men and women of virtue to carry the flag of our natural rights against the formidable resistance of those that seek to deny us the true rights of God and men.