Black Man with a Gun: 30 Year Gun Control Cycle

Kenn Blanchard of Black Man with a Gun has an article up saying that gun control seems to go on a thirty year cycle with some crazy, restrictive, nonsensical laws being passed for example in 1934, 1968, 1994, and now.

In 1991, I began a campaign to change the gun laws in America. It was accidental. Having grown up in the turbulent 60s, the groovy 70s and the excessive 80s, the thoughts on guns depended where you were geographically, and culturally. The Gun Control Act of 1968 had made firearms the scapegoat for the murder of the Kennedy’s, King, and El Shabazz. It was an easy sell. War is still hell. Criminals still kill people. Bad guys still exist.

Every thirty years since the first gun control act in the Virginia colonies preventing the Indigenous people, Chinese and African from owning firearms, the issue of gun control flares like sunspot. Politicians find the support to lie and instill fear of the inanimate object. Organizations grow based on that lie and people that don’t want to think believe.

Every thirty years, gun laws become more restrictive. Common sense is excused. The facts are ignored and popular opinion shifts away from reality.

What has happened in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the past few months is right on schedule.

The response is different though. In the past thirty years, we have connected via the internet. The news is still fed to us, but it can be chosen. Information can be shared without government approval. People are able to decide what they want to believe. The tactics to divide us are still the same and still work however.

Fearing a repeat of the deadly violence that engulfed Charlottesville more than two years ago, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a temporary emergency Wednesday banning all weapons, including guns, from Capitol Square ahead of a massive rally planned next week over gun rights.

The Governor of Virginia, mobilized law enforcement to imply that the decades old Lobby Day in Richmond was a threat to the Commonwealth. The passing of sanctuary cities in over 150 locales in the state added to the fervor. What is worse is that the same governor that may have donned black face in college, insinuates that the Virginia Citizens Defense League is like the white supremacist that plagued Charlottesville in 2017. Yes, he found some crazies to arrest prior to Lobby Day but the 3000+ people that successfully showed up, not only cleaned up after themselves but were law abiding.

He declared a state of an emergency and bans guns from Capitol Square. The media loved to show us the pictures of the armed brothers and sisters outside that area.

Gun control is and always has been racist.

The racism nobody will admit is against the white male gun owners of Virginia…

 

 

Click here to read the entire article at Black Man with a Gun.

Black Man with a Gun: That’s Crazy Talk

David Cole at Black Man with a Gun has a short article up on mental health and red flag laws titled That’s Crazy Talk.

I was recently listening to a talk given by my friend Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio on the topic of “red flag laws,” and she said something that caught my ear. She was explaining the difficulty that trained psychology and psychiatry professionals have in predicting violent behavior, and said “we suck at it.”

Minority Report is fiction, you know.

She’s absolutely right. It does not take much research to discover that it is in fact extremely difficult to predict violent behavior in even those clinically diagnosed…by professionals…as mentally ill. It is also a widely recognized fact that mental illness does not automatically mean someone is dangerous.

So why would we get in such a big hurry to take guns from people suspected of being dangerous, as assessed by the untrained non-professional…when the professionals admit that they “suck at it,” and that the vast majority of legitimately mentally ill people are not dangerous?

And why, if the mental health of the person is in question, do “red flag laws” confiscate the gun(s) but not the person? If the person is suspected of being dangerous, why should they not be immediately confined for assessment by mental health professionals? If their mental health were really that important to us, wouldn’t we want to see that they receive immediate care? And if the safety of those around them were truly the priority, how effective is it to just confiscate the guns we know about, while leaving the supposed dangerous person free to a gun we missed, obtain a replacement gun, or substitute another weapon to commit violence? After all, you could even leave the guns right where they are if you simply take the dangerous person away from them and into treatment.

Seems like there’s an awful lot of holes in that red flag.

You just know what she’s going to do if she gets out…

It is because it actually has nothing to do with mental health or violence prevention, and everything to do with removing as many guns as possible from the hands of free, law-abiding citizens. There are already plenty of laws on the books to prohibit criminals, addicts, and those who have been legally designated as mentally ill from possessing guns. But “red flag laws” are nothing more than an attempt to throw the largest possible net over as many gun owners as possible, without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

And that’s crazy talk.

Gun Control is Bearing False Witness Against Your Neighbor

From Kenn over at Black Man with a Gun. Full podcast below quoted text.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16

It is exactly what prohibitionist, and anti-rights do when they push for gun control. The people, you and I that are affected by the changes in laws not the criminals, the insane, the evil or the terrorist.

To be a false witness against our neighbor basically means to falsely accuse someone else of wrongdoing. In the Torah, false witnesses were dealt with very harshly. We see in the above verses that if a person was found to be bearing false witness against another person, they would be given the punishment that the other person would have received if the witness was true! With such a righteous law, we can understand why ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses’ every matter truly was established. If anyone rose up as a false witness, they would be given the same punishment they thought to give to their neighbor…. risking their own life! With such a thing facing them, they would be very careful, yes?