The Racist History of Gun Control

So what is her point? Or your point for that matter?

My point is that is one of the reasons why I am in favor of people being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. As an American and an American "of color" I don't want anyone infringing upon my rights.

I'm willing to bet that Coulter didn't cover this in her article:

"The Panthers’ methods provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” "
(Reagan signed that Act.)

In short, history sometimes repeats itself and if you read this article below, it can articulate my point much better than I can.
The Secret History of Guns - Adam Winkler - The Atlantic
 
Granny says, "Dat's right - `cause he the Prez'dent...
:cool:
Obama: ‘Executive Action’ on Gun Control ‘Within My Authority as President’
January 14, 2013 – President Barack Obama said Monday he would take some unilateral executive action pertaining to gun control, following up on proposals that will be put forward by a group headed by Vice President Joe Biden.
After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December, Obama named Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force to present proposals for gun control. Biden, who met with House members on Monday about guns, has said he would give his recommendations to Obama by Tuesday. “My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation,” Obama said. “Some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I’ll be reviewing those today, and as I said, I’ll speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week.” “I am confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president and where get a step that has the possibility to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it,” Obama said.

Obama was asked what those measures might be. “How we are gathering data, for example on guns that fall into the hands of criminals and how we track that more effectively,” the president responded. “There may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed through legislation.” The president’s call for better tracking comes after the Justice Department botched gun sting operation known as Operation Fast and Furious that sanctioned “gun walking,” or allowing nearly 2,000 guns to flow to Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Obama was asked about the large number of gun sales occurring. “As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that we’ve seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government’s about to take all your guns away,” Obama said. “And there is probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business. But I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners – people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don’t have anything to worry about,” he said.

Source

See also:

Obama Can't Just Rule by Decree, Const. Law Experts Say
January 14, 2013 - President Obama on Tuesday is expected to use “executive action” to advance gun control, but constitutional law experts told CNSNews.com that there really isn’t much that Obama can legitimately do to regulate guns -- and still be faithful to the U.S. Constitution.
=snip=
Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, told CNSNews.com that while the president certainly has a history of issuing executive orders, his hands are tied. “This president has shown no shyness about using executive orders, but here there’s just a little bit that he can do,” Pilon told CNSNews.com. “He can’t, for example, ban assault weapons or he can’t order expanded background checks, it seems to me,” he added. “He could limit the numbers and types of weapons that come into the country from abroad, it seems to me -- it’s possible.

Ronald Rotunda, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University Law School in Southern California, said the U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow a president to simply issue directives. “The president can’t just rule by decree – we don’t do that in our country.” Rotunda told CNSNews.com. “I think it’s a tough case for him to make.” “Typically, a president can issue an executive order pursuant to an act of Congress or a ratified treaty. Or sometimes directly pursuant to a constitutional provision,” Rotunda said. “For example, the president has the right to recognize foreign governments and decide which governments to recognize. He can simply decide, for instance, to recognize mainland China, rather than Nationalist China, as has been done. “But otherwise, the power is limited. He has to find support in a statute or a treaty. There’s nothing in treaties about guns, so then (he would have) to find something in a statute.

Rotunda said the idea that Obama might order the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to seize certain kinds of weapons or ammo, is unlikely. But if it did somehow come about, then “it’s certainly going to be tested in court,” Rotunda told CNSNews.com. “The last time a president used an executive order that wasn’t authorized by statute – the last major time in the Supreme Court – was Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, where the president said, pursuant to his powers as commander-in-chief, that he was going to seize steel mills. And the Supreme Court said, in no uncertain terms, that that was unconstitutional.” That case was heard in 1952 – and the president in question was President Truman.

Rotunda, whose textbooks on constitutional law have taught generations of law students in some of America’s top law schools, says one of the reasons why the Court rebuked Truman was because Congress had already considered the issue of seizing the steel mills and decided against authorizing it. When it comes to guns and ammo, Rotunda said, Congress has also already spoken by allowing the ban on assault weapons to lapse, while maintaining other firearms regulations to remain in effect. “So, I think it is going to be a hard field to hoe to say that he has had this power all along, when Congress has looked at this area very carefully,” Rotunda said. “It is one of the most regulated areas in the Unit3ed States – alcohol, tobacco and firearms are, all three, highly regulated.”

Pilon said one thing Obama might do is foster the exchange of information. “He can certainly better coordinate the sharing of information that takes place between agencies of the federal government and between the federal government and the states – and so far as they are cooperating,” Pilon said, “because there seems to be a backlog right now – or at least a slowness – surrounding the communication between those who check backgrounds and sharing this information more broadly.” After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December, Obama named Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force to present proposals for gun control. Biden, who met with House members on Monday about guns, has said he would give his recommendations to Obama by Tuesday.

Source
 
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.

The Secret History of Guns

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

By Adam Winkler


The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.

The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must

take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.

Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.

The Secret History of Guns - Adam Winkler - The Atlantic

:eusa_shhh:


:eusa_clap:
 
486279_521512787870591_192076933_n.png
 
It certainly demonstrates the truth and their hypocrisy. It's pretty much akin to the two bigots who were on the board of our HOA and ignored requests to have the Annual Meeting for 6 years. We finally fot sick of it and called a meeting for removal and election of new board members, and those two jerk offs actually had the nerve to say that some of the new board members had "violations" (that they were never informed of), while those asshole blatantly broke the State Condominium Act for over 6 years. Add their selective enforcement, harassment, and other fucked up rthings and one will get the picture.
 

Forum List

Back
Top