Happiness is a warm gun

[MrFanti]

None of your links illuminate your claim.

They all do.
If you can't see it, then I can't explain it.

Bottom line to summarize is that the Black American population is not a monolithic group that many think we are.
And...
Both Dems and Repubs like to make decisions for us - instead of letting us think and sort things out for ourselves.

[Stavros]

They all do.
If you can't see it, then I can't explain it.

Bottom line to summarize is that the Black American population is not a monolithic group that many think we are.
And...
Both Dems and Repubs like to make decisions for us - instead of letting us think and sort things out for ourselves.

You wrote "Democrats and Republicans are both highly confused about LEGAL Black gun owners." but your links are websites with general information rather than discussions of whatever the confusion is you refer to.

I have never said or implied Black Americans are a 'monolithic' group, but even you must be aware that in general terms, the majority of Black Americans who vote, choose Democrat candidates, and that this is the reason why the Republican Party has a long record of denying Black citizens the vote though various measures, while just this year re-districting in some States has aimed to dilute the Black American vote where, geographically, it enables the election of Democrats. And they don't even hide their intentions.

The key issue here is not about Black and White anyway, but whether or not any American of any colour or identity, needs to own a weapon of war of the kind used in mass murders. I heard someone from Texas say quite simply that he needs a battlefield weapon for 'self-defence', which makes one ask, 'defend yourself from whom, or what?'. Or it could be that in fact, these people want these weapons for offence rather than defence, for that time when they believe they will not be fighting to 'take back' their country at the ballot box, but on the streets, armed and dangerous.

And you know who will be in their crosshairs. It is you.

[Stavros]

Mo Brooks -'We need guns when it's time to take our country back' -meet Carol Anderson, who argues the 2nd Amendment was designed from the start to give White people the guns they need to put down rebellious Black people, and remove Federal controls on firearms....

Rep. Mo Brooks Says We Need Our Guns So We Can 'Take Back' The Nation (yahoo.com)

Carol Anderson: The Second Amendment is anti-Black – Center for Public Integrity

[Stavros]

He was only, 24 hours from Tul-sa...but he can't resist promoting policy failure when the evidence doesn't suit his perverted view of the world he lives in-

Gun control, as the link shows, works, just as the ban on assault weapons that was introduced during the Clinton Presidency resulted in a decline in deaths from battlefield weapons, but expired in 2004. Democrats are divided on what should be a no-brainer policy, or maybe terrified of taking on the bogus arguments used about the 2nd Amendment- the right to bear arms? What in any definition, is a 'Well organized militia'? One crazy dude with an AR-15?

You would think men and women of intelligence would not be paralysed by policy failure, but until a Tory MP (Tobias Ellwood) today called for the UK to seek membership of the EU Single Market, Brexit was a non-negotiable policy, in spite of the damage it has caused. Thus from this clown in Congress, with a big red hooter and shit for brains-

"“When I was growing up in Springfield, you had one or two murders a year,” he said. “Now we have two, three, four a week in Springfield, Missouri.“So something has happened to our society. I go back to abortion, when we decided it was OK to murder kids in their mothers’ wombs. Life has no value to a lot of these folks."
GOP Lawmaker Manages To Blame Abortion For Mass Shootings (yahoo.com)
They got the death penalty in Missouri? Sure do, coz they valu life so much...
Missouri | Death Penalty Information Center

[Stavros]

So the Party of Trump's war against freedom enters a new phase-

"The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law requiring applicants for a license to carry a gun outside of their homes to have a “proper cause” to do so, saying it violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The 6-3 ruling in the case is a major victory for gun rights advocates who had challenged New York’s restrictive law, which makes it a crime to carry a concealed firearm without a license.
It also represents the Supreme Court’s biggest expansion of gun rights in more than a decade — and casts doubt on laws in eight other states and the District of Columbia that restrict concealed-carry permits in ways similar to New York."
Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law on Second Amendment grounds (cnbc.com)

I don't know if Sullivan's Law was as effective in deterring gun crime in the state of New York as some think, it is a separate issue. What I find difficult to comprehend is the that the Court claims the law violated the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which makes no reference to individuals, but to 'a well organized militia' -perhaps at some point a Jurist can define what a 'well organized militia' might be, because I struggle to think it means a spotty 18-year old who lives with his mum, or a dad of three living in Yonkers, or Bonkers as the case may be.

Below is the link to an abstract and then an article by Robert Leider published last year. The key issue is a key element of the argument justifying the Liberal Democratic state that has its origins in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan of 1658 where it is argued that the citizen should surrender to the State a degree of Liberty in return for the State defending the citizen. It was subsequently elaborated on culminating in Max Weber's early 20th century argument that by definition, the modern state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus Leider takes on the Monopoly argument to argue that a decentralization of force that gives individuals guns is both a practical means of securing the citizen, and a Constitutional right.

Leider offers three reasons,
1) that law enforcement 'still enforces law below desirable levels'- in other words, armed citizens can compensate for the lack of law enforcement;

2) there is a mismatch between Public Duty and Private Rights. I find this confusing, but this is what he says-
"While providing effective law enforcement is a public duty, it is not a private right. Individuals, thus, have no effective claim that the government adequately enforce the law or protect them against unlawful violence. And any attempt to create such a private right would create profound separation of powers concerns. Consequently, self-help and private law enforcement are the best remedies when governments undersupply needed levels of police protection. "

3) get this -"even if the “government” has a monopoly of force, it does not follow that government officers are the only ones in whom the government’s monopoly may be vested" -in other words, law enforcement can be decentralized to the citizen because the Officers of the govt might not be good at their job.

His conclusion is just as breathtaking -"the article concludes that the individual right to bear arms still has relevance for public defense and security." But when the 2nd Amendment was framed, a 'well organized militia' was conceived as an addition or even a replacement for the Continental Army that fought the British, which Washington wanted to disband. It was thus conceived in terms of a 'Militia' rather than an Individual, and to combat external invasion of the United States rather than local law enforcement where the citizen doesn't have it, for whatever reason.

Thus, there is an argument that the Police Department can be 'defunded' or just shut down, and law enforcement be the task of armed citizens, whether they form a militia or not; and one also can see how such men and women would not just take up arms to defend their property and their neighbourhood, but use it to attack the Federal Government of the USA if they define it as a 'tyranny'. And is it ironic or deliberate, that such people, Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Three Percenters, prefer to parade around with battlefield weapons rather than Midnight Specials?

So, gun law in this sense creates a separation of powers that Leider claims he wants to avoid, by reducing the need of the State to maintain its monopoly or violence or the use of force, but in doing so, also creates the potential for force and violence which undermines the authority of the State, thus enabling a form of Anarchy barely mitigated by the assumption that the rule of law will prosecute men and women who use guns against the law, for example by killing people -unless they can mount the Rittenhouse 'Self-Defence' argument.

And still no definition of 'A well organized militia' -or a debate on the precise nature of guns and ammunition in the 21st century,.

Leider's abstract is here-
The State’s Monopoly of Force and the Right to Bear Arms | Antonin Scalia Law School (gmu.edu)

The full article is here-
viewcontent.cgi (northwestern.edu)

[Stavros]

A brave move, an urgent measure, and one that has attracted legal complaints like flies on a jam sandwich. But where is the moral argument that asks how much longer gun advocates are going to stand by while children are born who never get to ten years old because they have been shredded by a bullet, or two, or ten?

We have been here so many times before, but it never gets better. Is there no hope at all that even limited measures to restrict the carrying of weapons of death in public can be passed -does it really undermine anyone's freedom to leave the gun at home?

A US governor tried to ban guns amid ‘relentless’ violence. The lawsuits followed swiftly | New Mexico | The Guardian