Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Black Religious Leaders: Gun Control Is All About Controlling People

Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 23, 2013, 10:20 a.m. EST by kendallone (-28)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

The NRA actually helped blacks defend themselves from violent KKK Democrats in the south, not the other way around.

So it is refreshing that there are a few black leaders today who still understand the correlation and history between gun control and people control. CNS News reported:

The gun control laws that banned or put restrictions on African Americans from owning firearms are documented on a timeline from 1640 to 1995 by the National Rifle Association’s Institute of Legislative Action and can be found here.

Ken “The Hutch” Hutcherson, former linebacker with the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys and pastor of the Antioch Bible Church, told CNSNews.com “gun control is about controlling people.”

CNSNews.com asked: From what was said today, it seems in fact that gun control hurts the African American community.

“It absolutely does, there’s no doubt about it,” Hutcherson said. “It began that way with history. You see why there was so much gun control earlier in life – in American life – because it controlled African Americans.

“Gun control is about controlling people,” he said. “We need to understand that those who need to be trained, who need to be armed is the African American community, and I don’t understand why any African American that is there in Congress right now would have the slightest thought about taking guns away from African Americans. We need them.”




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ynot (48) 5 years ago

I support VERY tough gun laws. All over, in any part of any country, all over the world. I know it is a dream to get to this, but it will be achieved in the future, for sure. Before you can drive a car, you go through tough tests to get a licence and after that you are subject to tough laws: speed restrictions, parking/stopping areas, conditions of the car (good tyres, no pollution, etc), not driving under influences, re-register the car every year after an inspection, re-new drivers licence every so often, regular inspection on the spot of your conditions and of the car, etc. etc, You know the drill, there are laws to control the car, the driver, the conditions of both that it comes out of your ears. This is all over the world. And there are people out there that say that guns can be bought and carried and use at will, no restrictions or very little of them, no questions asked because the law says so and we must leave it that way. Just amazing. The argument that guns in the hands of untrained, unregulated, untested civilians are for your protection is pathetic to say the least. I own a pistol, use it for target shooting regularly and I am under the impression that I am safe, but I know, that is an illusion. I was under fire a good half a dozen times and can tell you that I did not know if I was coming or going; that was in the last instances, when I had some experience already; but the first and the second time that I was under fire, I can not tell you anything, it was just "hell". And I was amongst the very few that stayed cool and under some (very little) control of my emotions, my reasoning. Many others (soldiers with many HUNDREDS OF HOURS of training) lost it; shooting all over and running out of ammo is a few mins. standing up and running under fire, walking on the middle of the road where the chance of mines was so high, refusing any instructions from superiors, etc. They just lost it; they just couldn't think strait. That was in situations (army) that I knew who the enemy was, where he was and anyone around him was fair game; but now in civilian life, if under fire, I have no idea who is shooting, where is he firing from and the chances of me on returning fire killing an innocent is so high that I WILL NOT DO IT, although I can consider myself a marksman (I was one in my days in the army) unless I am 101% sure what is happening; the chances of that happening are so slim that I will not bet 1 cent on it. So, please spare me the thought that if you own and carry a gun you will return EFFECTIVE fire in a case of an attack in a crowed shopping centre or inside a movie theatre, or on an open road crowded with bystanders. Leave that to the professionals, the police. You will say: yes when the police arrives it is too late. Sure, that is why the policy of no guns at all, will reduce that instance to close to zero, to so few instances that it has to be acceptable, like car accidents. I might say in return that, because if you have a road accident and are hurt badly, when the paramedics arrive you will be dead. So, the solution is everyone must be a doctor to cater for those cases. Yeah, right. ynot

[-] -1 points by kendallone (-28) 5 years ago

You have heard of the concept of a "deterrent". right?

You do know what the 2nd Amendment is for right? Here's a clue it's not hunting.

Cars and Constitutional rights do not a cogent/credible analogy make.

[-] 2 points by ynot (48) 5 years ago

"" You have heard of the concept of a "deterrent". right? "" Yes I do. How does Japan with its stick gun laws manages so low homicide, suicide and accidental shooting? Because you hardly have guns in the hands of the civilians. BTW, Japan is just one example. You can find many more in the net.

"" You do know what the 2nd Amendment is for right? "" Slavery was in the USA constitution. Racism was in many countries constitutions also (ask South Africa, it was only recently that racial laws were removed from the constitutions. Constitutions are "living" documents that must adapt to the times. So when one finds a law that it is no longer applicable, it has to be removed or modified, by general consensus. Nothing wrong with that.

"" Here's a clue it's not hunting. "" Americans buy guns to protect themselves from a possible tyrannical government, so when such government tries to do something that goes against the will of the majority, the people will have enough fire power to resist any attempts at implementing undesirable laws or any action by the government that is unconstitutional. So they buy more and more guns and if you tell them that there are already too many guns in the hands of the civilians, they will throw at you “the Second Amendment”. If you tell them that AR15’s are military type weapons not needed by civilians, they will again throw at you “the Second Amendment”. They say that the population has to match the fire power that the police or the troops that will be sent at them, will have. As such, the AR15’s are a must. I hear such arguments over and over on the telly. My first question to those people is: the police or the troops sent to quash the 200 or so militia armed with AR15’s that you quickly assembled in your neighbourhood, will have many tanks and mortars and RPG's and helicopter gunships, etc. So, how will you resist such fire power with your AR15? Does the Second Amendment allow you to carry/own weapons that can match the ones used by the armed forces, kind of drive an armed tank in town, or have a helicopter gun ship fully loaded and ready in your back yard, just in case the government goes berserk? My second question is: how many shots were fire by the old “Soviet citizens” that took down a government with the largest army in the world? As I can remember, hardly any shots were fired or there was very little exchange of fire between the troops and the resistance. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and others all fell without any use of fire arms. Hardly any shots were fire (except Romania). Lots of civil disobedience, protests and outside assistance was enough to take down the largest army in the world. The third question is: how many shots did the ANC members fire at the apartheid troops during the 40 years of the resistance of that movement? Very little. True that quit a few bombs were placed inside the cities, but exchange of fire was minimal. The downfall of the apartheid government happened due to lots of civil disobedience, protests and lots of outside assistance. Diplomacy was the order of the day. During the apartheid era, black people were not allowed to “bear arms” and the South African borders were very well secured, so very few arms were brought into the country; even though that regime was brought down. How many arms did the Egyptians needed to take down the regime of Mubarak? How many shots were fired? Very little and as you all know that regime, with a large army fell in a very short time. Again, the order of the day was civil disobedience and many, many daily protests. I think we can say the same about Myanmar/Burma; the tyrannical regime is all but finished and the majority of the “arms” used were once again protests and civil disobedience. The supporters of the Second amendment will turn around and say: what about Libya? See, it was the fire power that took Kaddafi down, wasn’t it? True; it was the fire power, but how many weapons the Libyans had while Kaddafi was ruling? Some hunting riffles yes, but I doubt they had any mortars and RPG's while Kaddafi was ruling. Those machine guns that we saw installed in vans, the AK 47’s, some anti aircraft weapons, were all smuggled into the country just before the revolution or as the revolution was happening. What about Angola and Mozambique? Once again, the civil population (the blacks) was not allowed to own guns, but they managed to wage a 10 year war against the Portuguese troops. And even in North Vietnam and Algeria: how many guns the civil population owned before they took on the French? None; or very little, as I can remember. Even the Americans had to withdraw from Vietnam, not due to arms owned and carried by the civil population. Just about all liberation wars were staged against the oppressor, not with arms owned and carried by the civilians. You can claim that the arms owned by the civil population today in USA will speed up the war against the rough government; I doubt it if you look at Libya. From the moment the first protests started to the first shots fired by the resistance very little time happened. 5 or 6 weeks perhaps. All weapons needed to accomplish the task were brought into the country then, thanks to friendly countries like the USA and EU. The more I think about the excuse of the gun lobby in the USA, the more I find it ridiculous. So, the idea that a well armed civil population is needed, is a myth and only serves the agenda/the pockets of the gun industry of the country. The Second Amendment should be "amended". It served its purposes already.


[-] -2 points by kendallone (-28) 5 years ago

The History of Racist Gun Control in the United States


[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Yea, I’ve already seen the video. Aside from the racist shots at White people I thought it was a good video. I agree with them. In all the discussions I’ve heard I’ve yet to hear one that will actually reduce gun violence. The focus is totally about either banning some gun types or restrictions guns out of existence. In spite of what some people say, the end game for anti-gun folks is to take guns away from law abiding people gun owners who’ve never committed a crime.

If you really want to reduce gun violence, the go after the street gangs and drug gangs.