No Guns for Negroes, A Different View Of Gun Control

[Oreo]

Part I

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU"]YouTube- No Guns for Negroes Part One[/ame]

Part II

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA"]YouTube- No Guns for Negroes Part Two[/ame]

 

[Dave328]

I have never wanted anything more than to be IOP1!!!

 

[Woods]

Good message for everyone... bad guys shouldn't be the only folks with guns.

 

[Geardo]

One of the main problems is the insane, and unconstitutional War On Drugs

 

[Woods]

Just curious... why is the war on drugs unconstitutional?

I'm not an advocate of wasting so much time and money generating wealth for underground of society, particularly when we could be taxing the sale of narcotics instead of taxing me into oblivion, but I've always kind of looked at it as a bad, but legal and constitutional, idea.

 

[whbonney26]

Some very valid points in the videos. Good videos. The only ones who are being denied guns now are ones with criminal backgrounds.

 

[Red Jacket]

Well that is genius . " Gun Control , it's RACIST , Yo ! "

 

[Oreo]

Well that is genius . " Gun Control , it's RACIST , Yo ! "

 

[Mjolnir]

Very much true.

We're all Negroes now.

 

[thatwhichisnt]

Just curious... why is the war on drugs unconstitutional?

I'm not an advocate of wasting so much time and money generating wealth for underground of society, particularly when we could be taxing the sale of narcotics instead of taxing me into oblivion, but I've always kind of looked at it as a bad, but legal and constitutional, idea.

It violates the right to self ownership, and property rights are very much guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus, if we legalized freedom then the CIA couldn't sell drugs to fund its black-ops.

 

[Paul Gomez]

A wonderful book on this topic is 'Negroes With Guns' written by Robert Williams. It was originally published in 1962 and reprinted in 1998.

 

[Paul Gomez]

Dude gets it wrong when talking about the Jonesboro incident and the Deacons for Defense. The reason the men who became the Deacons [the orginization did not exist at this point] showed up was because their children and grandchildren were protesting the closing of the high school. Local law enforcement had the fire department there with trucks and intended to turn the hoses on the kids.

If you can imagine the scene, law enforcement on one side of the street, fire hoses at the ready and a 100 high school students with picket signs on the other. A station wagon pulls up and four old black men, grandfathers and veterans, get out and begin loading their shotguns. One walks over to the Chief of Police and says, "If you turn those hoses on those kids, blood will run in this street."

Men like the Deacons for Defense & Justice and Robert F. Williams are the unspoken heroes of the Civil Rights movement but due to the animosity between King & Williams, there is no mention of Williams in the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.

 

[Snookie]

WHAT???

What did you say SPANKY?

 

[Ellis1958]

May I also suggest reading "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Steve Ekwall available at www.blackmanwithagun.com.

 

[Woods]

It violates the right to self ownership, and property rights are very much guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus, if we legalized freedom then the CIA couldn't sell drugs to fund its black-ops.

You'll have to point out to me where in the consitution property rights and self ownership are guaranteed... as I haven't seen where it makes mention of them.

The Declaration of Independence made mention of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with some positing that happiness was equivalent to property in this context, but the DoI isn't a legal document by any means.

Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think the basic system the constitution put in place with the Supreme Court deciding the consitutionality of laws actually works.

And the CIA needs that money so it can properly kidnap and waterboard people.

 

[thatwhichisnt]

You'll have to point out to me where in the consitution property rights and self ownership are guaranteed... as I haven't seen where it makes mention of them.

The Declaration of Independence made mention of "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with some positing that happiness was equivalent to property in this context, but the DoI isn't a legal document by any means.

Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think the basic system the constitution put in place with the Supreme Court deciding the consitutionality of laws actually works.

And the CIA needs that money so it can properly kidnap and waterboard people.

All of our rights, IE natural rights, are not possible without property rights. We can not have freedom of religion without having land to worship on. We can not have freedom of press without the ability to own a printing press. We can not have the right to bare arms without the ability to own firearms. Property rights are are the core of every right we have.
With property rights comes the most important right, and that is the right to self ownership. If this country still followed the founding documents more people would understand this. We have the right to do whatever we please with our body, as long as it does not harm anyone else's life or property. To deny this and let anyone or any group of people (government) make restrictions on what you can do with your body is to say they have a higher claim to your body than you do. That is slavery.

 

[S&W4ME]

Don't make me use this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Woods]

All of our rights, IE natural rights, are not possible without property rights. We can not have freedom of religion without having land to worship on. We can not have freedom of press without the ability to own a printing press. We can not have the right to bare arms without the ability to own firearms. Property rights are are the core of every right we have.
With property rights comes the most important right, and that is the right to self ownership. If this country still followed the founding documents more people would understand this. We have the right to do whatever we please with our body, as long as it does not harm anyone else's life or property. To deny this and let anyone or any group of people (government) make restrictions on what you can do with your body is to say they have a higher claim to your body than you do. That is slavery.

You're right in some respects... as evidenced by the fact that using drugs and being addicted is not illegal... merely the trafficing and possession of them... dumb distinction, I agree, as how can you use them without possessing them at some point.

I don't really want to suppose what the Founding Fathers meant... nor does it matter much what they thought then, as I'm sure a couple of them believed that bloodletting could cure a cold... but I imagine they didn't specifically include property rights so that property and property types could be regulated as seen fit by Congress and the States.

I agree that's a valid argument, and would argue something along those lines should a debate about the basis of freedom come up, but as the constitution is written, I don't see how regulation of any class of good is unconstitutional.

That's the funny thing about the constitution... it's only a rule book when it comes to the organization of federal government... everything else it just sets boundaries.

Don't make me use this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I spit coffee all over the place laughing at this.

 

[posse comatosis]

We're all Negroes now

I'm down wit dat if she be down on me.