Yep, White Progressives, I know a lot of you are scared 'cause I'm bringin' up race here yet again. I know it "triggers" a lot of you.

Well, here's an example of why I do this. Prof. Marcus Cole, currently Dean at Notre Dame Law School and formerly teaching at Stanford (when he wrote this), speaks on the Black man with a gun, why he has it, and why he deems it necessary.

https://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... and-a-gun/

Doesn’t bother me. Agree with the content in regard to the second and the fourteenth.

I know it doesn't bother you. But it does seem to bother some here, unfortunately. I wish those particular individuals would open their minds to the non-White perspective more than they do. And it's not just here on the LGC forums. I've found that rather strong discomfort out there in society as well.

Apparently in red states, women are excluded from the p and I clause regardless of race. Vote out those who accept that inequality.

On edit

We cannot pursue a more perfect union if we allow some to separate citizens by race, gender or other inherent features. All available rights for all eligible persons.

CDF

CDFingers wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 5:01 pm Apparently in red states, women are excluded from the p and I clause regardless of race. Vote out those who accept that inequality.

On edit

We cannot pursue a more perfect union if we allow some to separate citizens by race, gender or other inherent features. All available rights for all eligible persons.

CDF

To the contrary, in "red" states or "blue" states, Black women can buy guns just as well as Black men can.

CowboyT wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 6:05 pm

CDFingers wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 5:01 pm Apparently in red states, women are excluded from the p and I clause regardless of race. Vote out those who accept that inequality.

On edit

We cannot pursue a more perfect union if we allow some to separate citizens by race, gender or other inherent features. All available rights for all eligible persons.

CDF

To the contrary, in "red" states or "blue" states, Black women can buy guns just as well as Black men can.

Unless those women seek certain health care options.

CDF

CDFingers wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 6:24 pm

CowboyT wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 6:05 pm

CDFingers wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2024 5:01 pm Apparently in red states, women are excluded from the p and I clause regardless of race. Vote out those who accept that inequality.

On edit

We cannot pursue a more perfect union if we allow some to separate citizens by race, gender or other inherent features. All available rights for all eligible persons.

CDF

To the contrary, in "red" states or "blue" states, Black women can buy guns just as well as Black men can.

Unless those women seek certain health care options.

CDF

Like what? Shooting in self-defense? You're dancing around something, but I don't know what because you're not making it clear. Whatever you're referring to, does it relate to the topic of this thread?

The same Justice featured in that 2010 piece was the same one who stripped women of their rights.

CDF

The 2nd is an amendment to the US Constitution, Roe v Wade is based on an interpretation of the Constitution not an enumerated right in the body or an amendment.

Liberals dislike the “privileges or immunities” clause for fear that it might legitimate the kinds of unenumerated rights they hold in contempt, like the rights to property and freedom of contract. It is not a coincidence that these are precisely the rights that the Reconstruction Congress sought to protect with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Likewise, conservatives, including the plurality in McDonald, are uncomfortable with the “privileges or immunities” clause because it legitimates unenumerated rights, like the right to privacy recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.

Even in 2010, I'm sure Marcus Cole stuck out at Stanford University's law school, he seems like he's a better fit at the University of Notre Dame's law school. That's where Justice Barrett went and taught. I don't subscribe to the belief that once a justice makes a ruling I don't like, that all their rulings are rubbish. It's a personal essay by Cole based on his personal experience and his view of history and the law.

While I wholeheartedly agree with highdesert's statement, " I don't subscribe to the belief that once a justice makes a ruling I don't like, that all their rulings are rubbish," I'll say that the guy has made one or two opinions I agree with, and I can't remember the second one off the top of my pointed little head.

Even my "favorite" SCOTUS Justice has stated positions I find objectionable, if I comb through their writings.

I'm glad that Thomas agreed with the rights to protect self and family in that case. I wish more of Frederick Douglass's contemporaries had heeded his words, and taught the wisdom to their young.

I have no problem with Black people owning firearms. I have reason to believe that most will use them responsibly, probably in better proportion than white folks.

But, then, I also believe that guns are not the cause of interpersonal violence, and that the root causes of such are not being addressed by the mostly-white power structure because racism.

highdesert wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:31 am The 2nd is an amendment to the US Constitution, Roe v Wade is based on an interpretation of the Constitution not an enumerated right in the body or an amendment.

Liberals dislike the “privileges or immunities” clause for fear that it might legitimate the kinds of unenumerated rights they hold in contempt, like the rights to property and freedom of contract. It is not a coincidence that these are precisely the rights that the Reconstruction Congress sought to protect with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Likewise, conservatives, including the plurality in McDonald, are uncomfortable with the “privileges or immunities” clause because it legitimates unenumerated rights, like the right to privacy recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.

Even in 2010, I'm sure Marcus Cole stuck out at Stanford University's law school, he seems like he's a better fit at the University of Notre Dame's law school. That's where Justice Barrett went and taught. I don't subscribe to the belief that once a justice makes a ruling I don't like, that all their rulings are rubbish. It's a personal essay by Cole based on his personal experience and his view of history and the law.

Oh, *that's* what CDFingers is dancing around. OK, folks, let's keep any "Roe v. Wade" or abortion issues out of this thread. Any discussion of that should be in its own thread. This thread is about Prof. Cole's paper on the right of self defense, especially for racial minorities.

Same thing happens when trying to pet a snarling dog as when trying to troll a rhetorician.

If we do not liberally pursue all available rights for all eligible persons, we are blowing it.

CDF

CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2024 1:46 pm Same thing happens when trying to pet a snarling dog as when trying to troll a rhetorician.

If we do not liberally pursue all available rights for all eligible persons, we are blowing it.

CDF

Then start a thread on subject.

Play nice

Thanks, Inquisitor.

There is a long history of Black American firearms ownership in this country. Frederick Douglass indeed advocated for this. Gun control was invented to hinder the exercise of that right. My Dad is one of those who exercised that right, and it saved his life on several occasions, as I've detailed before.

What that professor in the article is talking about is the right to keep and bear arms for defense against tyranny. Prof. Cole's father faced a situation eerily similar to what my Dad had to face. I am pleased and grateful that Prof. Cole kept his Dad's shotgun to protect his own family. I would argue that what Prof. Cole describes as happening to his father--that beat-down that apparently required reconstructive surgery--was, indeed, tyranny. Specifically, it was tyranny inflicted on his father at the hands of racists who didn't want "those damned darkies" in what they saw as "their" space, a predominately White neighborhood.

So, those who ask for gun control, I would suggest, are actually helping the White supremacists. Let's not do that. This right is too important.

CowboyT wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 11:33 pm Thanks, Inquisitor.

There is a long history of Black American firearms ownership in this country. Frederick Douglass indeed advocated for this. Gun control was invented to hinder the exercise of that right. My Dad is one of those who exercised that right, and it saved his life on several occasions, as I've detailed before.

What that professor in the article is talking about is the right to keep and bear arms for defense against tyranny. Prof. Cole's father faced a situation eerily similar to what my Dad had to face. I am pleased and grateful that Prof. Cole kept his Dad's shotgun to protect his own family. I would argue that what Prof. Cole describes as happening to his father--that beat-down that apparently required reconstructive surgery--was, indeed, tyranny. Specifically, it was tyranny inflicted on his father at the hands of racists who didn't want "those damned darkies" in what they saw as "their" space, a predominately White neighborhood.

So, those who ask for gun control, I would suggest, are actually helping the White supremacists. Let's not do that. This right is too important.

This. Not only white supremacists, but all the other phobics intent on harming others for being different. These are also the reasons the dems anti gun platform is dangerous and why harris as a president will be dangerous. She’s too far down the bloomie rabbit hole to realize her positions work counter to the interests of the people including some of the vulnerable groups whose interests she claims to support.

I have to say it again even though it seems unpopular. The levels of incoming infringement on the right to keep and bear will fundamentally change (destroy) America/this Republic. Particularly in communities of color, limiting access to firearms and making it convoluted and difficult to own firearms and ammunition will destroy the ability of individuals to protect themselves, their families, and their cultures to the extent that America as we know it will be fundamentally changed for the worse in ways most people, especially people not of color, can believe. It's convoluted enough now enough. We have plenty of legislation in place already. Time to address to root causes of violence with the vehemence that we are attacking the right to keep and bear. Especially where communities of color are concerned as they are the most at risk.

VooDoo

Indeed. Makes one wonder just why the Democrats, who keep claiming to support brown-skinned people, want so desperately to keep making it harder and harder for us to actually exercise the RKBA. And they're not so much going after "criminals", as that's already covered by existing law. Rather, they're going after people like me, my neighbors, my customers when I worked at the gun store, overall law-abiding folks.

That's why Professor Cole's treatise, and others like it, are necessary to counter the gun-control religion currently being promoted non-stop.

Easy to claim yet tough to prove, we can find neither laws nor policies that target any specific immutable quality (height, handedness, race, gender, sexual preference, eye color, etc.) about the right to keep and bear arms nor about its practice. Thus, gun laws focus on persons, as they should. The 14th Amendment codifies that all persons who are citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Whether non-citizens enjoy those protections is still under dispute. This is not to say that those immutable qualities do not figure into people's beliefs or attitudes, because they obviously do. But these attitudes are not reflected in law. This is why root-cause mitigation is the best strategy, though it is a long term strategy.

We must be patient and remain focused, and we must pursue the most effective means of addressing this issue.

CDF

We have to be careful with that, though. De-jure, you're quite correct; it's no longer in the law. De-facto, however, we see, and you yourself have (correctly) pointed out in other threads, that law enforcement action against racial minorities happens at a considerably higher rate than against the White population. Furthermore, I personally have seen in more than one case a lack of enthusiasm by law enforcement for going after White supremacists who commit hate crimes (this was in Portland, Oregon). And of course the time difference in law enforcement answering calls in predominately Black neighborhoods vs. predominately White neighborhoods is...disgusting. In the former, e. g. East Palo Alto, you were lucky if you called the police and they'd show up in an hour. You therefore don't have that hour to wait for the police when someone's trying to find a way into your home; you need to defend yourself *now*. Contrast that with the latter, say, Portola Valley or Woodside; you called the cops, they made a 10-minute trip in 5 minutes to help you, and they didn't see you as the suspect.

Here's another reason we need to be careful with the "it's not in the law" argument. Again, de-jure, you're quite correct; we have abolished Jim Crow from the law books, thank goodness. As Nichelle Nichols put it, "we've come a long way, baby." She then went on to say, though, "we've still got a long way to go."

Here's what I mean. I hear that same basic argument from many of our White Conservative brothers and sisters on a regular basis, especially when I go to the gun shows. "Those Jim Crow laws aren't the law anymore," they tell me, and they're right. Those laws *are* gone.

But then we have this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ&t=20s

But those laws targing those immutable properties are gone! That's not in the law anymore!

That's why I think we need to be very careful with that argument.

I'm not seeing where Professor Cole's argument isn't holding water here.

Unless it's law, old white bigots will do what they please.

CDF

So, where is Prof. Cole's argument not holding water? I'd like to see some specifics on that.

I'm pretty sure many people find it frustrating that they cannot control people without the law. Sometimes it'll be that way, which is why democracy is a messy business while freedom remains untidy.

For example, one old white bigot bought himself a Supreme Court Justice to vote to take away women's autonomy. How fun is that? None.

The cleanest way to avoid bigotry, misogyny, racism or any perceived reverses of said afflictions is to employ the section of the 14th guaranteeing equal protection under the law for all persons who have had the good fortune to become or be born as citizens of the United States of America. How not?

CDF

So, you're agreeing with Prof. Cole, then?

That's a pretty broad blanket statement. I agree that the equal protection clause holds the key to peace and acceptance.

CDF