4 ms·

There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed. Even long after the civi

There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed. Even long after the civil war laws were passed to implicitly prevent blacks from being able to obtain guns. For instance the National Firearms Act of 1934 put a whopping $200 tax on firearms purchases. The goal, like many earlier bills, was just to ensure that blacks and poor whites could not effectively arm themselves. Even the gun control act of 1968 was influenced out of a fear that black groups, such as the Black Panthers, were starting to arm themselves and demonstrate accordingly. There's a really interesting article on that here [2]. And actually this is a general theme throughout history. For instance gun laws which effectively disarmed their target population played a crucial role in the numerous 20th century genocides. From the Jews in Germany, to the Armenians in Turkey, to the "intellectuals" in Cambodia, to subversives and dissidents in Stalin's Soviet Union, and many more. First came the the restriction of guns then came the unveiling of what the beasts behind these governments truly were. This of course is not to imply that all efforts at gun control come with some ulterior motive, but simply to exemplify that governments that do have that ulterior motive tend to be damn scared of an armed population. [1] - http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html [2] - https://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/ https://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_...

foldr 8y ago
>There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed Those laws were passed because black Americans in the South did have easy access to guns following the civil war. The guns don't seem to have helped them much.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.
  - foldr 8y ago
    Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction-and-its-end-meant-for-black-americans-who-had-fought-for-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction... >The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance mustered out according to length of service. Because blacks were not admitted into ranks until the middle of the war, they were retained at a higher rate, making the occupying force “blacker” than the one that won the war. The roughly 200,000 black Americans who served in the Union Army comprised an estimated 10 percent of the North’s total fighting force. But by the last quarter of 1865, blacks made up about one-third of the occupation army. Many Southerners took this as a deliberate Union insult.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. This happens time and again because disarmament, in and of itself does, not seem particularly heinous. But the problem is that the heinous acts, that would more clearly justify violent resistance, start only after disarmament - when it's already too late.
      - foldr 8y ago
        >So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights. >~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. Then why did they bother passing the laws? It's also patently absurd to suggest that an occupying army doesn't constitute a significant force. No citizens' militia is likely to approach the capabilities of a 150k well-organized soldiers.

foldr 8y ago

>There were laws in most states banning blacks from owning guns [1], presumably largely out of fear that they might fight back if armed Those laws were passed because black Americans in the South did have easy access to guns following the civil war. The guns don't seem to have helped them much.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
You can please provide a source instead of just stating things that don't really make any sense? Guns were quite expensive and there were countless laws preventing blacks from owning or buying guns as well as making it a crime to provide them to blacks. "Blacks had easy access to guns" does not follow from these facts.
- foldr 8y ago
  Those laws were passed following the civil war because of concerns about groups of black soldiers who did in fact have guns. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction-and-its-end-meant-for-black-americans-who-had-fought-for-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/02/what-reconstruction... >The end of the Civil War left an army of occupation in the South. The natural tensions of military occupation were exacerbated by black troops. Only a fraction of Union troops occupied the South after the war, and the balance mustered out according to length of service. Because blacks were not admitted into ranks until the middle of the war, they were retained at a higher rate, making the occupying force “blacker” than the one that won the war. The roughly 200,000 black Americans who served in the Union Army comprised an estimated 10 percent of the North’s total fighting force. But by the last quarter of 1865, blacks made up about one-third of the occupation army. Many Southerners took this as a deliberate Union insult.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    The slave population in 1860 was about 4 million. ~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. That said, I think you were also stating something different than I was. In particular a recurring theme in history is that people don't tend to fiercely resist disarmament. So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. This happens time and again because disarmament, in and of itself does, not seem particularly heinous. But the problem is that the heinous acts, that would more clearly justify violent resistance, start only after disarmament - when it's already too late.
    - foldr 8y ago
      >So even if blacks had easy access to guns prior to disarmament, we would have expected them to give them up with relatively minimal resistance. That seems to pretty clearly undermine the whole case for guns somehow preventing violations of rights. >~150k surviving black soldiers with an unknown number who decided to stay in south, doesn't really justify stating that blacks had easy access to weapons. Then why did they bother passing the laws? It's also patently absurd to suggest that an occupying army doesn't constitute a significant force. No citizens' militia is likely to approach the capabilities of a 150k well-organized soldiers.