Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Gun-People Play the Race Card to the Supreme Court

We are talking professional race-card playing here.

In March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for why local governments should not enact gun control laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The lead case the high-court will consider is that of Otis McDonald, a 76 year-old Black man from the Morgan Parks section of Chicago, who is suing the city because he says he needs a gun to defend himself in his crime-infested neighborhood. However, McDonald’s lawyers are not arguing the 2nd Amendment, as the National Rifle Association would hope, but rather a violation of 14th Amendment, whereby constitutionally backed "privileges and immunities” offered the citizenry of (several) states are denied in another state.

The NRA is a respondent and supporter of the petitioner, Mr. McDonald, but it seems like they agree more with Mr. McDonald’s skin color, than with his argument for why he should get his gun. In fact, McDonald lawyer, Alan Gura, and the NRA do not agree upon which Amendment battle to hang their respective hats. But what they do both seem to agree upon is the promise that changing the gun advocacy argument from one of rural, conservative, White males onto the plight of an aging Black man, is a winner. So who, I ask, is playing the race card in McDonald v. Chicago?

Some full-metal jacket spin-doctors are even going so far as to liken Mr. McDonald’s plight to that of freed slaves whose rights as new citizens were protected from similar attempts to block individual states from passing laws to selectively strip them of constitutional rights, particularly gun ownership. Other charlatans have the nerve to compare this strategy to Thurgood Marshall’s approach in Brown v. Topeka Kansas (Board of Education). BS! Finding a compelling, sympathetic example of a wrong, as Marshall did, within a similar offended group is quite different than slight-of-hand re-framing of an argument across demographic lines, to play on the racial and political sensitivities of the justices and the public.

As much as I feel for Mr. McDonald’s desire to protect himself in his home, I cannot sanction this trickery in order that more White men (and women) can strap on 9 millimeters to watch their kids play soccer, or buy legal AK-47’s for ‘sport hunting’, or running around the woods target shooting in preparation for an upcoming race war. The number of potential fatal accidents involving registered guns in dense urban places far outweighs the approach of arming everyone to the teeth. I don't like it, but McDonald should stash his unregistered shotgun at the ready, knowing that no jury will ever convict him of ridding the world on one more B&E thug operating beyond the law. And honestly, he stands a bigger statistical chance of having the weapon used against him, rather than protecting him.

James C. Collier


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Pedro Gringo said...

"As much as I feel for Mr. McDonald’s desire to protect himself in his home, I cannot sanction this trickery in order that more White men (and women) can strap on 9 millimeters to watch their kids play soccer"

I'll share something with you.

I live in Miami. I'm white. Very white. My wife and I both have concealed carry permits. And we utilize them.


Because we commute through Overtown.

I don't have kids yet, but when we do I'll not take the firearm to soccer practice. Unless the practice is near a Vibrant and Diverse Community of Color (meaning anywhere near MLK blvd).

I'm sorry. I know you wanted to poke fun at whitey and his love of guns. I don't love guns. I'm just tired of black crime. I own guns because America had slavery. It's our punishment.

Anyways, good on the NRA for helping that dude protect himself. I have a high enough of an income that I live nowhere near Vibrant and Diverse Communities of Color. But poor blacks gotta live near poor blacks. And poor blacks shoot the place up, causing dumb-ass whites to pass gun laws (as if the criminals will follow these laws). Ergo, the law-abiding poor black is disarmed. Ha. What a bloody clusterfu%k.

James C. Collier said...

Gringo 8:10, the problems you highlight are as real as Mr. McDonald's, and I take nothing away from them. What I challenge is the trickery by gun advocates in the courts which resorts, at best, in more guns, gun play and dead, including accidents. The real problems will remain until they are confronted. I studied TaeKwondo in part to avoid fights - I wish that carrying a gun actually decreased the chances of a bullet leaving a chamber - history says no.

Esho Woman said...

Dear James,
you are so right. I would like to ask if Pedro Gringo would feel the same about whites if he lived in a drug infested rural southern or Midwest town that is riddled with meth dealers and addicts? I live near several of them. Should I have a gun to protect myself from them or is it just "poor blacks" who "shoot the place up" the only danger? Pedro stop being a narcissist and admit that whites can be just as dangerous and prone to gun violence as other races.

Pedro Gringo said...


If I lived near meth head whites, I would carry two guns. Thankfully, I don't, so one will suffice for now.

In fact, my goal in life is to, to the greatest extent possible, avoid the underclass, whatever their color be. This country is utterly dysfunctional.

Brian said...

I agree with McDonald and hope he prevails. Why shouldn't he have a right to protect himself?

Your argument makes no sense. It's the typical anti-gun position, and it has never had solid legal standing... which is why the Courts typically rule in favor of gun rights.

I believe in gun rights (esp. to have them in your own home), but I also believe in sensible gun control (a much more reasonable position). The anti-gun folks go too far in the other direction IMO... by wanting to block gun ownership across the board.

Why should the criminals in places like Chicago, D.C., Philadelphia or any big city in the Country where urban terrorists run rampant have all the guns? Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to have a chance to survive? They have the right to life, liberty...and to feel safe/be safe in their own homes. These same anti-gun folks don't want the government telling THEM what to do in their own homes..yet they see the need to do the same for others when it comes to gun ownership.

Law abiding/trained citizens should also be allowed to carry their weapons if they so choose...within reasonable limits.

The anti-gun folks are alarmists... and make a very weak case for their position. There is little evidence for banning guns across the board... it's one of the dumbest public policy positions that I have ever heard. Such a move would only take guns away from law abiding citizens...while the criminals remain armed. They aren't going to give up their weapons.

Most of these folks don't know the real numbers, try to skew them or don't know how to interpret what the stats say. And the media doesn't help...because it amplifies the anti-gun position. But the public rarely hears about guns being used properly in self defense. Tens of thousands of crimes are thwarted each year... including thousands of cases where the life of the victim is saved. These cases don't make the national news... only the big shootings by the criminals or by irresponsible gun owners get the widespread TV coverage.

The last case I heard regarding a child being shot accidentally was a few months ago in St. Louis...but the gun belonged to the mothers criminal thug boyfriend who wasn't supposed to have the gun in the first place. He apparently left it laying around for the 4 year old to find.
But the anti-gun folks will take a situation like this one and will try to use it to support their position, as idiotic as it is. These cases will always exist... They have nothing to do with the gun debate. The gun debate is about law abiding folks and their right to protect themselves... The thugs will always have their guns...and we all agree that they should not have them. Anti-gun folks love to mix these two issues to try to discredit supporters of gun rights. It's just a weak & stupid argument...always has been, always will be.

And if you think that you can rely on Police or anyone else to save you.... just look at the case at the Seattle Train station (not the best example) or the case in Florida where the young lady did everything she was supposed to do to deal with a stalker.... went to court with tons of evidence to get a restraining order but was denied... she ended up dead a few days later. Or the tons of cases where Police can't get to a house in time and the homeowner is assaulted or killed.

I just wish the anti-gun folks would stop the alarmist nonsense that has no basis or evidence to support it. They are almost as irrational as the Tea Party crowd on the other side. I wish we could get back to sensible debate.

James C. Collier said...

AI; Normally, the gun advocates are using menacing pictures of Blacks to support their cause for arming (Whites), to proper claims of racism. In this case, they co-op the plight of this man McDonald, as cover, and no one bats an eye. I do not like the exploiting tactic. Tomorrow, it will be a manufactured Willie Horton, again.

Captain Napalm said...

The reason for the discrepancy in which amendment to file under is because of legal history. The Fourteenth has been used to require states to provide *some* of the Bill of Rights to their citizens. Loads of things flow through the vagueness of the Fourteenth.

The NRA's position is that the Second Amendment applies directly. The lawyers seem to be trying to get the Second applied through the Fourteenth, which has been how this stuff has worked historically.

There's nothing underhanded in the tactic, unless damn near all Federal civil rights lawsuits are underhanded as well.