Is "Saturday Night Special" a racist term?

I see your point, SecDef, but I have to concur with the reasoning behind Anti's logic.

If you expose the roots of Saturday Night Special, it helps build proof behind gun control as race control. That makes people think twice about things, and that's not being petty.

I, for one, always understood the basic argument behind gun control as race control, but learning about the historic root of SNS has been an eye opener for me.
 
When dealing with people who argue in terms of emotion rather than logic an occasional dousing with cold water to cause them to pause and evaluate what they are spewing is appropriate.
 
If someone is against cheap, will work once, may explode in your hands gun sales (as these [can be construed as] by design meant for nefarious reasons, and are dangerous to both the wielder and bystanders - everyone EXCEPT who it is pointed if you trust urban legand ;)) it isn't about race.

Frankly, until this thread, it never occurred to me that it was a racist comment, and if I were making the argument against them and someone stopped me to explain that the term is racist, I would say.. umm, ok, and then continue with my argument, changing the wording.

*I* would not feel bad, as I never knew it was racist. Upon being informed as such, I stop using it. It makes exactly zero impact on my argument, and how I feel about it.

Of course, I would also think you were petty, like if you were on a discussion board challenging my arguments by pointing out speling misteakes.
 
Last edited:
Of course, I would also think you were petty, like if you were on a discussion board challenging my arguments by pointing out speling misteakes.
Click to expand...
[snicker]Yeah, I know that was intentional.[/snicker]

Sorry SecDef, it is not petty. Mostly because after you "educate" the speaker, you turn around and show how gun control has evolved from being a racist thing to an elitist thing. Care to argue that it isn't? Elitist, that is...

Words mean things SecDef. The more we know the origins, the better we can trace the language drift (or development, as it were). Things like, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Care to show how the meaning of the word, "infringed," has changed? Or possibly the phrase, "the right of the people," has changed in meaning? Or will you now argue that is is also "petty?"

You might go right on speaking, after I have shown you the historical basis for the term, but anyone listening will not be fooled. And it is precisely them, to whom I speak. They will take a step back from you.
 
I'm on Antipitas's side here.

Not only can one point out the racial origins of SNS, but one can also make a good case that the modern version seeks to specifically disarm the poor.

The rich, powerful elite have always worried about the masses having access to guns. Originally it was slaves and non-whites and now it seems to be the poor folks who must suffer. Back in the 50's and 60's there were any number of manufacturers putting out crappy little guns like the Clerke. Mostly cast metal with a steel barrel and cylinder in low-powered rounds like .22, .32 and .38 S&W. But these guns did work if you didn't shoot them a lot and many poor people used them for protection. Of course they were also misused too.

Anti-gun legislation, such as California's "function test" is window dressing to simply make guns more expensive. The more expensive a gun is, the less poor people can afford them. This is like California legislating standards for automobiles based on a Mercedes S-550 (MSRP $82,000). The net effect is that poor people are deprived of weapons for their own defense and must rely on police for help. This pits them against armed thugs and thus they become a voting base for anyone who wants to reduce "gun violence".

(Historical note for non-CA residents - the "function test" and "drop test" requirements in CA were supposed to prevent sales of Lorcins, Jennings, Bryco's and similar "cheap weapons-of-choice" for criminals. Legislators had egg on their faces when most models of these guns actually passed the tests and given authorization for sales.)
 
Oh it is absolutely elitist. There is no doubt in my mind that guns cost money, and since they generally need to be well made to function properly, then they cost more than bread and milk and therefore there will be a segment of the population to whom buying a gun isn't a trivial option.

I'm just saying it isn't really a racist thing anymore.

There is also the guns that are referenced by the term: they really should encompass not just cost, but also channels of availability (like some unregulated market that sells without background check to anybody and without serial numbers).

What remains of the phrase isn't the racist component, it is the connotation that these are for all intensive purposes one-time use guns, factually accurate or not.

This opinion comes from someone that doesn't use the word "niggardly" even though it has no racist component and never has, but merely has the perception of it and is not out to offend anyone.

So yeah, if you stop to point out the origination, without realizing that it really no longer has the same denotation nor connotation, it is merely a distraction in a discussion.
 
SecDef said:
So yeah, if you stop to point out the origination, without realizing that it really no longer has the same denotation nor connotation, it is merely a distraction in a discussion.
Click to expand...
If one stops there. I haven't and I don't. I strive to put the icing on the cake, that is, going from the racial to the elitist connotations of the phrase.

As for the "cheap guns" component, not all are equal, as Bill has shown. Yet even that is not the issue anymore. As I said, language evolves. Today, more and more, the phrase has the connotation of small, easily concealed firearms... Not just cheaply made.

And isn't that just exactly what we want, when we carry?

It has been very effective, both in speaking to groups, or letters to the editor.
 
No, you are clearly not arguing about the fact that cheap guns may or may not be available to those in the lowest class. You are arguing that the phrase SNS is racist. That is a very different thing.

Is there a replacement phrase? If there is, then suggest it and get back to the real argument. Waiting for someone to walk into a "trap" means you need more than your argument to win. That diminishes the strength of your argument in that case. That is, perception of the strength of your argument is diminished.

If someone is talking about how a battalion was decimated in a battle and they never should have been there, and you point out that decimate was a specific term use describe a punishment to soldiers, you are NOT addressing the argument at hand.
 
I say tomatoe, you say tomato....

And just yet, it is to the average person we are arguing. At least I am. And I am willing (within reason) to use the same emotional arguments that my opponents use for that very same effect.

The very essence of debate is not what we say to each other, to convince the other, it is what we say that convinces those who watch the debate.

For as much as you think, therefore so shall you be. (Sophocles)
 
If someone is talking about how a battalion was decimated in a battle and they never should have been there, and you point out that decimate was a specific term use describe a punishment to soldiers, you are NOT addressing the argument at hand.
Click to expand...

Decimate's original meaning was to reduce by 1/10th - to kill one man in 10.

dec·i·mate
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology: Latin decimatus, past participle of decimare, from decimus tenth, from decem ten
1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2 : to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier -- John Dryden>
and most recent usage
3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

re: Racist usage

"Saturday Night Special" is, in fact, a racist term as noted by Clayton Cramer's scholarly work in The Racist Roots of Gun Control. The fact that time has "worn down" the racist meaning does not change this fact or the fact that the majority of early gun control laws were aimed squarely at Blacks for racist reasons.

Modern politics has pushed the racism aside in favor of bigotry against the lower socio-economic strata of society. You can find examples of decent quality, but inexpensive, firearms referred to as a SNS, including both Iver-Johnson and H&R breaktops because they sold for less than half of the "brand name" guns.

I can easily imagine a mostly polymer revolver, using steel cylinder & barrel sleeves in .22 and .32 calibers being made with a stamped metal trigger group inserted like the Ruger DA revolvers and selling for around $150. I can also imagine the politicians revising statutes to require a "minimum melting temperature" for revolvers in order to ban the gun too.
 
BillCA, you need to get a better dictionary. I don't understand what your point was in quoting current definition, when clearly definitions change. (This serves better to help you understand the original usage and etymology. The connotation of usage as "punishment" is clearly indicated yet somehow missing in your "original meaning")

"Saturday Night Special" is, in fact, a racist term as noted by Clayton Cramer's scholarly work in The Racist Roots of Gun Control. The fact that time has "worn down" the racist meaning does not change this fact or the fact that the majority of early gun control laws were aimed squarely at Blacks for racist reasons.

Modern politics has pushed the racism aside in favor of bigotry against the lower socio-economic strata of society. You can find examples of decent quality, but inexpensive, firearms referred to as a SNS, including both Iver-Johnson and H&R breaktops because they sold for less than half of the "brand name" guns.
Click to expand...

Like you said, modern politics has pushed racism aside.
 
SecDef - thanks for the link. I was using Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Yes, modern politics has pushed aside the blatant racist use, however look at the demographics of people considered "poor" in America. All they have done is use economics to exclude a large number of minorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top