[vanity post] A whole new meaning to 'Rr'

Mon Aug 14 07:58:26 PDT 2017

On 08/13/2017 10:18 PM, jim bell wrote:
>
>
> *From:* Razer <g2s at riseup.net>
>
> On 08/13/2017 11:17 AM, jim bell wrote:
>> >>Sort of an armed "Guardian Angels" operation.
> [...]
>
> >From a conservative magazine, New Republic:
>
> >Gun Control Is “Racist”? The NRA would know
> >By Adam Winkler
> >February 4, 2013
>
> >National Rifle Association President David Keene stirred controversy
> Saturday by insisting that gun control’s origins were racist. “You
> know, >when you go back in history,” Keene told the Daily Caller, “the
> initial wave of [gun laws] was instituted after the Civil War to deny
> blacks the >ability to defend themselves.” Keene’s history is off by
> at least century—gun control existed in the American colonies and in
> the founding era—

>
> I wish people who made that these claims would provide details. 

Do your own research. These are magazine articles, not white(snigger)
papers.

> As for "the American colonies", well that was of course when we were
> "colonies":  We existed under British law.  Laws then would have been
> only weakly relevant.     As for "the founding era", that would be
> very relevant, but what were those restrictions?

> With the Civil War <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War>
> ending, and the question of the rights of freed slaves to carry arms
> and to belong to militia came to the attention of the federal courts.
> In response to the problems freed slaves faced in the Southern states,
> the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted.
>
> When the Fourteenth Amendment
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>
> was drafted, Representative John A. Bingham
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham> of Ohio
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio> used the Court's own phrase
> "privileges and immunities of citizens" to include the first Eight
> Amendments of the Bill of Rights under its protection and guard these
> rights against state legislation.^[20]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Kerrigan-20>
>
>
> The debate in the Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil
> War also concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm
> the newly freed slaves. One particular concern was the disarming of
> former slaves.
>
> The Second Amendment attracted serious judicial attention with the
> Reconstruction
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States>
> era case of /United States v. Cruikshank
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank>/ which
> ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause> of the
> Fourteenth Amendment did not cause the Bill of Rights, including the
> Second Amendment, to limit the powers of the State governments,
> stating that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to
> restrict the powers of the national government."
>
> Akhil Reed Amar notes in the /Yale Law Journal
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_Journal>/, the basis of Common
> Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which would
> include the Second Amendment, "following John Randolph Tucker
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randolph_Tucker_%281823%E2%80%931897%29>'s
> famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist Haymarket Riot
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot> case, /Spies
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Spies> v. Illinois/":
>
>     Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as
>     limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and
>     recognize fundamental rights—common law rights—of the man, they
>     make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the
>     United States...^[21]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#cite_note-21>
>     ^:1270
>

> Breyer's dissent in McDonald v. Chicago,  
>  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf  , gives some
> examples, but mostly they seem to prohibit discharge of firearms in
> cities. 
>
> There is no indication that there would be an actual prosecution for
> such a discharge, if it was done for the purpose of self-defense. 

Tell that to some black kid who gets killed defending himself with a bag
of skittles instead of a tec9.

But lets talk about the real problem. Institutional racism, by intent
and design, and it's built into your Rich White Men's
|c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶i̶p̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶  constitution.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/08/charlottesville-what-you-wish-upon-others-you-wish-upon-yourself.html

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/america-fixates-on-500-assholes-instead-of-healing-its-own-institutional-racism-27b1be7d004b

|
> There is also the point that only in 2010 was it specifically ruled
> that the right specified in the 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" to
> cover the states, rather than the Federal government.  Most of those
> Amendments were not thought to cover the states until the late 19th
> century, if then.  
>
>                 Jim Bell
>
> [...]
>
> >Full: https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist
>
> >Rr
>
>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Leigh Meyers <g2s at riseup.net> <mailto:g2s at riseup.net>
>>
>> > Redneck Revolt is a national network of community defense projects
>> > from a broad spread of political, religious, and cultural backgrounds.
>> > It is a pro-worker,
>>
>> At first glance, using the term "pro-worker" suggests 'anyone who has
>> a job'.  THAT would sound very inclusive, wouldn't it?   But from
>> extensive experience reading, I've found generally this is used to
>> mean, "blue-collar workers".  
>> I really have to wonder about people who insert code-words and
>> code-phrases in their speech.  Sounds like the same old
>> "class-struggle" nonsense we've been hearing from Communists and
>> Socialists for 120+ years.  The same Communists and Socialists who
>> were responsible for well over half of the government-caused deaths
>> around the world in the 20th century.
>>
>> I should also point out that the kind of people who speak and write
>> like this tend to be PC (politically-correct), which makes me want to
>> prod them by reminding them that "pro-worker" could be construed as
>> rudely excluding people who take welfare-checks.  Are they trying to
>> be hostile in this way?  At least, there's an inconsistency here.
>>  But we know they aren't hostile to welfare-check recipients.
>>  Rather, they are simply being selective in their targeted audience.
>>  Divide and conquer.  And their website, below, confirms this.  Class
>> this, class that.  
>>
>> > anti-racist organization
>>
>> My working definition of "racist" tends to be, "Anybody who thinks
>> race is important".  Sadly, the term "anti-racist" is generally used
>> as yet another code-word, used to imply "leftist".  Will you be
>> mystified when I tell you that I think that leftists are some of the
>> biggest "racists" there are?  Do you understand why?  
>>
>> > that focuses on working
>> > class liberation from the oppressive systems which dominate our lives.
>>
>> Uh, pardon me, but why only "working class liberation"?  And do you
>> mean, "everybody who has a job", or "just blue-collar workers".  And
>> why don't you say you want to 'liberate' welfare-recipients, too?  Or
>> retired people?  Or children?  What do you think made them
>> welfare-recipients in the first place?  Are they not worthy of being
>> liberated as well?   Okay, I know, I know, you are engaging in
>> selective marketing here.  
>>
>> Tell you what.  22 years ago, I figured out a method that would truly
>> and completely liberate everyone from the oppressive systems which
>> dominate our lives.   I called it, "Assassination Politics".  (AP for
>> short)   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm   and
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market      Maybe it
>> will scare you, because I claim it will completely eliminate
>> governments as we know them, and anybody who has a warm place in his
>> heart for having a large, intrusive government will find this outcome
>> truly terrifying.   Read the essay and tell us all if you are
>> terrified.  
>> ×
>>
>> > In states where it is legal to practice armed community defense, many
>> > branches choose to become John Brown Gun Clubs, training ourselves and
>> > our communities in defense and mutual aid.
>>
>> On the one hand, I'd say that's great.  Sounds like a militia.  I
>> wonder, however, if there is any recognition here that historically,
>> the left has been strongly anti-gun, and has extensively spoken
>> against the formation and operation of militias.  Are you ignoring
>> those facts?  Do you recognize the inconsistency?  Maybe you should,
>> first, explicitly acknowledge this major error, and then work to fix it?
>>
>> Maybe your first project should be Chicago, with its famous level of
>> murders.   Sort of an armed "Guardian Angels" operation.   Are you
>> hostile to the people who are doing those murders?  If not, why not?
>>  And maybe you won't be able to carry guns in the open, exactly due
>> to the restrictive gun laws in Chicago?  The very same restrictive
>> gun laws that keep ordinary, law-abiding citizens from carrying guns,
>> laws that somehow don't seem to prevent the criminal-class from carry
>> guns.
>>
>> Maybe you ought to advocate for a change in gun laws, so that
>> American government would actually obey and respect the rights
>> guaranteed to all Americans by the 2nd Amendment.  My understanding
>> is that when the 2nd Amendment was written, in 1789, and ratified, in
>> 1791, the only people prohibited from keeping and bearing arms were
>> people who were already convicted of a death-penalty offense:  Such
>> crimes were called "felonies", those so restricted were called
>> "felons".  Problem is, over the next 200 years, the definition of
>> "felony" changed, ultimately being a crime punishable by a year or
>> more in prison.  Do you really think the Founding Fathers intended
>> that this be the proper definition of "felony", and that anyone so
>> convicted be prohibited from owning guns?
>>
>> (One exception:  Blacks were not allowed to own guns in the pre-Civil
>> war period.  But the reason given was that they were not considered
>> "citizens".  One argument made about the Dred Scott Supreme Court
>> decision  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford     
>> is that if blacks were declared citizens, they would have the right
>> to own guns.)
>> ×
>>
>>
>> > This project was founded in June 2016, by several members of previous
>> > similar community defense formations in Kansas and Colorado. We have
>> > 30+ vetted branches, united under our common goals as outlined in our
>> > principles, and organized through a collaboratively built national
>> > network.
>>
>>
>> >https://www.redneckrevolt.org/
>>
>> I checked it.  Clearly a lefty screed.  You are obviously not ready
>> to solve any problem, let alone all of them.
>>
>>               Jim Bell
>>
>>
>> >Rr
>>
>>
>> >Ps. The 60s. "Rising Up Angry", Radical 'Greasers'
>>
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Up_Angry
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 47447 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170814/7b041bca/attachment.txt>