Are anti-gunners racist ? Read this, esp. if you're a Marylander
- Thread starter RH
- Start date
I was wondering when this was going to come up here. 
The Sun ran a story on it a few days ago. http://www.sunspot.net/content/archive/story?section=archive&pagename=story&storyid=1150340224304 (that link's going to die in a few days cause of the lame way the Sun runs its archives)
Also, be careful about throwing around accusations of racism when you don't know who is of what race in the situation. (I'll admit that I wasn't at the meeting and only heard second-hand reports and only know a few of the people involved so I'm not going to make blanket statements.)
Anyway, here's a nice pic of the mural.
The Sun ran a story on it a few days ago. http://www.sunspot.net/content/archive/story?section=archive&pagename=story&storyid=1150340224304 (that link's going to die in a few days cause of the lame way the Sun runs its archives)Also, be careful about throwing around accusations of racism when you don't know who is of what race in the situation. (I'll admit that I wasn't at the meeting and only heard second-hand reports and only know a few of the people involved so I'm not going to make blanket statements.)
Anyway, here's a nice pic of the mural.
Nice mural. (Van Gogh Who?)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>from the "Sun" story
Alewitz likens this to censorship: "I will not disarm
Harriet Tubman. I won't take [the musket] out of her
hands," he said in a telephone interview before the
meeting.
...
The community coordinator of the statewide Harriet
Tubman mural project
defended the artist's choice.
"[Tubman] did not lead a revolution with a feather," said
Blaise DeKaolo.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>from the original story in the thread.
In a case that pits historical realism against modern
sensitivity to the gun violence gripping American cities,
Associated Black Charities says it will likely turn down the
piece because the weapon in Tubman's hand sends the
wrong message.
"We feel that in the year 2000, it is inappropriate for a piece
of artwork depicting guns and violence to be displayed on
our wall in Baltimore, which had more than 300 murders
last year," said Donna Jones Stanley, 44, the group's
executive director. "This is an organization that strengthens
the fabric of the African-American community, and I'm not
sure this depiction helps us as a community to strengthen
ourselves."[/quote]
Perhaps not rascism, then stupidity is the problem here.
However, rascism is a cornerstone of the beginings of gun control in America.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> from ->
Cato Study on Concealed Carry -> history of gun control
A Brief History of Firearms Regulation
In order to get some perspective on the concealed-carry debate, it will be useful to review the history of firearms regulation in the United States. Three
historical observations are particularly relevant for the purposes of this study. First, firearms regulation has traditionally been a matter of state law. Second,
while some states have had laws prohibiting the concealed-carry of weapons since the Civil War, it was, at the time those prohibitions were enacted,
perfectly legal to carry a gun openly in public. In fact, it is still legal today, if not socially acceptable, to carry a gun openly in public in some states. Third,
during the 20th century, most states adhered to a liberal policy concerning the acquisition or ownership of firearms but adopted strict rules concerning the
carrying of concealed weapons in public.
The "Ignoble Act" of Carrying Concealed Weapons
There appears to have been no general statutory restrictions on the ability of citizens to carry arms in the American colonies (excluding, of course, the
attempts of the English to disarm the colonists immediately preceding the American Revolution). Nor can one find any examples of general statutory
restrictions of, or prohibitions against, the carrying of arms, either openly or concealed, in the early American states. That absence of restrictions
corresponds perfectly to the historical fact that our forebears understood that they had an individual right to possess and carry arms for defense, subject to
the common law restriction, noted by Sir William Blackstone, that one could not carry such arms as were apt to terrify the people or make an affray of the
peace.
Restrictions on the concealed-carry of weapons first appeared in the South in the years preceding the Civil War; Kentucky's were the first in 1813. Few
persons had revolvers in those days, and the most feared of concealed weapons was the Bowie knife, not the handgun. [2] By 1850 most Southern states,
and Indiana, had prohibited the concealed-carry of weapons, including firearms.
Clayton Cramer, who has made an extensive historical review of case law relating to the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and
state constitutional guarantees, notes that the common characteristic of the states adopting those laws was slavery. The sole exception, Indiana, also serves
to prove the point, because it was largely settled by Southerners with strong Southern sympathies. The 1850 Indiana constitution, Cramer points out,
prohibited both slavery and free blacks from entering the state. Cramer suggests that the most likely explanation for concealed-carry laws is, therefore, to
be found in the problem of race. [3]
Law professors Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond suggest that the desire to control blacks was the principal, or at least a significant, reason for the
Southern gun control laws in the years preceding the Civil War. [4] While that may explain the laws that licensed blacks to carry or own guns or prohibited
them from carrying or owning arms, it does not explain why the Southern states took the additional step of restricting whites from carrying arms
concealed. The answer, according to Cramer, may lie in the abolition movement.
The problem of mob violence directed against abolitionists was sufficiently widespread during the 1830s, when the concealed weapons laws
became increasingly common in the South, that President Martin Van Buren's Inaugural Address, delivered in March of 1837, addressed the
problem twice.
In the South, where slaveholders were overwhelmingly in control, laws to protect attacking mobs from the unfair advantage of abolitionists
carrying concealed weapons would not be surprising. . . . In Northern states, where slaveholders had little direct influence on state governments,
the need to keep abolitionists in fear might have been less obvious. . . .
The most obvious connection to prohibition of concealed carry of arms in the South is that most of these laws were adopted in the years
immediately following Nat Turner's 1831 rebellion. While free blacks were banned from carrying weapons (openly or concealed) in statutes
different from those that banned concealed carry, the curious grouping in geography and time of these laws suggests that fear of slave revolt, or
of armed abolitionists, or both, provoked these laws. A detailed history of each state's concealed weapons statutes is . . . necessary to resolve the
question of why these laws appeared almost exclusively in slave states during the antebellum period. [5]
While fear of slave revolts or armed abolitionists may have provided the underlying motivation for those laws, it was not, for obvious reasons, the stated
justification for them. The Southern states that outlawed concealed-carry justified such laws, in theory, as a means of restricting the conduct of criminals,
while leaving the law-abiding alone, free to carry honestly. In the words of the Louisiana Supreme Court, laws prohibiting the concealed-carry of weapons
became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent
bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. [Such laws] interfered with no man's right to carry arms . . . "in full open
view," which places men upon an equality. This [open-carry] is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is
calculated to incite men to manly and noble defense of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages
and unmanly assassination. [6]
Thus, it is important to understand the background against which those prohibitions were upheld by the courts. The prohibition (as opposed to the
licensing) of concealed-carry developed in states that generally did not restrict the open-carry of firearms, at least by whites. (Numerous Southern states
outlawed either ownership or carrying of firearms by slaves and freed black men who, it was feared, would lead slave revolts.) Indeed, in some states it is
still legal to carry firearms openly in public. Unlicensed open-carry is still the law in Virginia, Nevada, and Maine, for example.
At the time the restrictions were enacted, then, people were generally free to carry firearms openly. Honest men engaged in lawful behavior had no reason
to take pains to hide their weapons, for weapons were a part of everyday life. In a society in which open-carry was the norm, the natural presumption was
that one was unarmed if his weapon was not in plain sight. In that context, concealment was regarded as an act of deception, an ignoble act designed to gain
unfair or surprise advantage over others. Open-carry placed men in a position of equality with respect to one another by giving all fair warning whether any
was armed. Since those who carried concealed weapons sought a deadly, unfair advantage, criminal or malicious intent was effectively presumed.
[/quote]
------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
~USP
"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited June 13, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>from the "Sun" story
Alewitz likens this to censorship: "I will not disarm
Harriet Tubman. I won't take [the musket] out of her
hands," he said in a telephone interview before the
meeting.
...
The community coordinator of the statewide Harriet
Tubman mural project
defended the artist's choice.
"[Tubman] did not lead a revolution with a feather," said
Blaise DeKaolo.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>from the original story in the thread.
In a case that pits historical realism against modern
sensitivity to the gun violence gripping American cities,
Associated Black Charities says it will likely turn down the
piece because the weapon in Tubman's hand sends the
wrong message.
"We feel that in the year 2000, it is inappropriate for a piece
of artwork depicting guns and violence to be displayed on
our wall in Baltimore, which had more than 300 murders
last year," said Donna Jones Stanley, 44, the group's
executive director. "This is an organization that strengthens
the fabric of the African-American community, and I'm not
sure this depiction helps us as a community to strengthen
ourselves."[/quote]
Perhaps not rascism, then stupidity is the problem here.
However, rascism is a cornerstone of the beginings of gun control in America.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> from ->
Cato Study on Concealed Carry -> history of gun control
A Brief History of Firearms Regulation
In order to get some perspective on the concealed-carry debate, it will be useful to review the history of firearms regulation in the United States. Three
historical observations are particularly relevant for the purposes of this study. First, firearms regulation has traditionally been a matter of state law. Second,
while some states have had laws prohibiting the concealed-carry of weapons since the Civil War, it was, at the time those prohibitions were enacted,
perfectly legal to carry a gun openly in public. In fact, it is still legal today, if not socially acceptable, to carry a gun openly in public in some states. Third,
during the 20th century, most states adhered to a liberal policy concerning the acquisition or ownership of firearms but adopted strict rules concerning the
carrying of concealed weapons in public.
The "Ignoble Act" of Carrying Concealed Weapons
There appears to have been no general statutory restrictions on the ability of citizens to carry arms in the American colonies (excluding, of course, the
attempts of the English to disarm the colonists immediately preceding the American Revolution). Nor can one find any examples of general statutory
restrictions of, or prohibitions against, the carrying of arms, either openly or concealed, in the early American states. That absence of restrictions
corresponds perfectly to the historical fact that our forebears understood that they had an individual right to possess and carry arms for defense, subject to
the common law restriction, noted by Sir William Blackstone, that one could not carry such arms as were apt to terrify the people or make an affray of the
peace.
Restrictions on the concealed-carry of weapons first appeared in the South in the years preceding the Civil War; Kentucky's were the first in 1813. Few
persons had revolvers in those days, and the most feared of concealed weapons was the Bowie knife, not the handgun. [2] By 1850 most Southern states,
and Indiana, had prohibited the concealed-carry of weapons, including firearms.
Clayton Cramer, who has made an extensive historical review of case law relating to the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and
state constitutional guarantees, notes that the common characteristic of the states adopting those laws was slavery. The sole exception, Indiana, also serves
to prove the point, because it was largely settled by Southerners with strong Southern sympathies. The 1850 Indiana constitution, Cramer points out,
prohibited both slavery and free blacks from entering the state. Cramer suggests that the most likely explanation for concealed-carry laws is, therefore, to
be found in the problem of race. [3]
Law professors Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond suggest that the desire to control blacks was the principal, or at least a significant, reason for the
Southern gun control laws in the years preceding the Civil War. [4] While that may explain the laws that licensed blacks to carry or own guns or prohibited
them from carrying or owning arms, it does not explain why the Southern states took the additional step of restricting whites from carrying arms
concealed. The answer, according to Cramer, may lie in the abolition movement.
The problem of mob violence directed against abolitionists was sufficiently widespread during the 1830s, when the concealed weapons laws
became increasingly common in the South, that President Martin Van Buren's Inaugural Address, delivered in March of 1837, addressed the
problem twice.
In the South, where slaveholders were overwhelmingly in control, laws to protect attacking mobs from the unfair advantage of abolitionists
carrying concealed weapons would not be surprising. . . . In Northern states, where slaveholders had little direct influence on state governments,
the need to keep abolitionists in fear might have been less obvious. . . .
The most obvious connection to prohibition of concealed carry of arms in the South is that most of these laws were adopted in the years
immediately following Nat Turner's 1831 rebellion. While free blacks were banned from carrying weapons (openly or concealed) in statutes
different from those that banned concealed carry, the curious grouping in geography and time of these laws suggests that fear of slave revolt, or
of armed abolitionists, or both, provoked these laws. A detailed history of each state's concealed weapons statutes is . . . necessary to resolve the
question of why these laws appeared almost exclusively in slave states during the antebellum period. [5]
While fear of slave revolts or armed abolitionists may have provided the underlying motivation for those laws, it was not, for obvious reasons, the stated
justification for them. The Southern states that outlawed concealed-carry justified such laws, in theory, as a means of restricting the conduct of criminals,
while leaving the law-abiding alone, free to carry honestly. In the words of the Louisiana Supreme Court, laws prohibiting the concealed-carry of weapons
became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent
bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. [Such laws] interfered with no man's right to carry arms . . . "in full open
view," which places men upon an equality. This [open-carry] is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is
calculated to incite men to manly and noble defense of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages
and unmanly assassination. [6]
Thus, it is important to understand the background against which those prohibitions were upheld by the courts. The prohibition (as opposed to the
licensing) of concealed-carry developed in states that generally did not restrict the open-carry of firearms, at least by whites. (Numerous Southern states
outlawed either ownership or carrying of firearms by slaves and freed black men who, it was feared, would lead slave revolts.) Indeed, in some states it is
still legal to carry firearms openly in public. Unlicensed open-carry is still the law in Virginia, Nevada, and Maine, for example.
At the time the restrictions were enacted, then, people were generally free to carry firearms openly. Honest men engaged in lawful behavior had no reason
to take pains to hide their weapons, for weapons were a part of everyday life. In a society in which open-carry was the norm, the natural presumption was
that one was unarmed if his weapon was not in plain sight. In that context, concealment was regarded as an act of deception, an ignoble act designed to gain
unfair or surprise advantage over others. Open-carry placed men in a position of equality with respect to one another by giving all fair warning whether any
was armed. Since those who carried concealed weapons sought a deadly, unfair advantage, criminal or malicious intent was effectively presumed.
[/quote]
------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
~USP
"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited June 13, 2000).]
Do you think any of these people who are shunning this picture were on the side of censorship when it came to elephant sh*t smeared all over "that catholic lady" in New York. I remember everybody calling Rudy a Nazi because he opposed the painting. I bet you any money, that this chick who is denying history, thought is was the artist's right to paint any religious figure in anyway (position, clothes, etc).
They are all F*#&#ing hypocrits, however stupidity is winning the war.
They are all F*#&#ing hypocrits, however stupidity is winning the war.