Jump to content

Do Gun Control Laws Hurt Minority, LGBTQ Communities More Than Others?


mauserme

Recommended Posts

https://www.ksl.com/article/50132093/do-gun-control-laws-hurt-minority-lgbtq-communities-more-than-others

 

Do gun control laws hurt minority, LGBTQ communities more than others?

By Dennis Romboy, Deseret News | Posted - Mar. 23, 2021 at 4:14 p.m.

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Sen. Mike Lee suggested Tuesday that "aggressive" gun control policies, including universal background checks and increased waiting periods to buy a firearm, disproportionately harm minority and LGBTQ communities.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on steps to reduce gun violence, Lee asked Chris Cheng, who won the History Channel's Top Shot in 2012, to elaborate on his testimony about the "racist roots" of gun control.

Cheng said gun control laws are well-intentioned and everyone wants to see violence in the country reduced. He cited an executive order under the guise of public safety and national security that unconstitutionally put Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II.

"Whether it's Japanese-Americans or any other Asian Americans or LGBTQ Americans, it's us today, but it's going to be someone else tomorrow," said Cheng, an expert in firearms and culture and their role in American history.

"When there are gun control bills under consideration, it threatens every single American's right to defend themselves from real imminent threats, and that's what frightens me about the gun control legislation in front of this body today," Cheng said.
...
In his written testimony, Cheng said he was appalled to discover how gun control has been used to discriminate against and control people in the United States going back more than 100 years. While Black Americans have possibly suffered the most at the hands of the U.S. government, Asian Americans have not escaped racism, either.

Poorly thought-out gun control policies will negatively impact Americans of all walks of life, all races, genders and sexual orientations, he said.
...
Lee said it's rarely the empowered, the wealthy or those with political connections who have their rights interfered with...

"If you live in a neighborhood that's well secured, that's behind a gate, if you can afford your own private security or if you're in a neighborhood for one reason or another the police monitor regularly, this might have a very different set of implications if you don't live in one of those communities," he said.
...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. IF you have to get a card to get a gun, and they can up the fee for that card high enough where you can't afford it, they have basically ban you from getting a gun legally. IF we take their arguments that certain ethic/races are at a lower economic level that others, those fees would adversely affect them more that the other groups. Same for the concealed carry fees etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Left can't have it both ways.

 

Either requiring even a simple Ident to exercise a right is discriminatory, or it isn't

 

If requiring an ID to vote, is discriminatory, then doing so to own a gun is as well.

 

If it isn't discriminatory to have to have an expensive, even hard to get license to own a gun, then having to have a simple State ID (which can and is paid for by many municipalities or states) isn't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. IF you have to get a card to get a gun, and they can up the fee for that card high enough where you can't afford it, they have basically ban you from getting a gun legally. IF we take their arguments that certain ethic/races are at a lower economic level that others, those fees would adversely affect them more that the other groups. Same for the concealed carry fees etc.

 

Like a poll tax, it's unconstitutional and has racist roots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. IF you have to get a card to get a gun, and they can up the fee for that card high enough where you can't afford it, they have basically ban you from getting a gun legally. IF we take their arguments that certain ethic/races are at a lower economic level that others, those fees would adversely affect them more that the other groups. Same for the concealed carry fees etc.

 

Like a poll tax, it's unconstitutional and has racist roots.

Yeah, like requiring a photo ID to buy cigarettes/liquor, to get either a covid test or vaccine, etc., but it is "racist" to require them for voting? If "poor people" can't afford photo IDs and they are the "most impacted" by this pandemic, how are they expected to survive as they can't get the vaccine without that ID???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "poor people" can't afford photo IDs and they are the "most impacted" by this pandemic, how are they expected to survive as they can't get the vaccine without that ID???

 

 

I'm still wondering how all these poor people without IDs are able to survive at all in today's world without ID? You can't even buy allergy meds without an ID, your need an ID to open a bank account, you need an ID to cash a check, the list could go on and on how are all these peope without IDs 'lawfully' functioning in today's society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historical stuff...

 

I recall reading that the first "gun control law" was in the Massachusetts Colony, prohibiting Catholics from having firearms because they were not trustworthy.

I've read that the first "weapon control law" was in the Virginia colony, barring black people from owning guns, knives, clubs, or cudgels

 

Also, the first "gun safety" law was passed in Tennessee right after the Civil War, which decreed that the only handguns safe enough to be possessed in the state were the Colt Single Action Army and Single Action Navy revolvers (which most white folk already owned, but the recently freed slaves could not afford)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that the first "weapon control law" was in the Virginia colony, barring black people from owning guns, knives, clubs, or cudgels

 

Also, the first "gun safety" law was passed in Tennessee right after the Civil War, which decreed that the only handguns safe enough to be possessed in the state were the Colt Single Action Army and Single Action Navy revolvers (which most white folk already owned, but the recently freed slaves could not afford)

Just like Illinois' melting point law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Also, the first "gun safety" law was passed in Tennessee right after the Civil War, which decreed that the only handguns safe enough to be possessed in the state were the Colt Single Action Army and Single Action Navy revolvers (which most white folk already owned, but the recently freed slaves could not afford)

The Army-Navy Law (which was copied around the south) made it illegal for anyone not a veteran (north or south) to own a weapon that was not decommissioned military. Veterans could own any weapon they wanted. After the Civil War, it was a pretty safe bet that the only non-veterans were former slaves. Decommissioned military weapons were, of course, the most expensive firearms, assuming any could even be found for sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...