A funny thing has happened with the gun control debate that I didn’t see coming; but, to tell you the truth, I should have seen it coming before now. After all, with all the talk of keeping guns out of the hands of “bad guys.” I’d be a liar if I didn’t admit that I always thought that translated to keeping guns pout of the hands of people of color. Of course this sounds crazy, but I’ll get to that in a minute — yes, do hold that thought, will you? As if the gun control debate could not have gotten any more ridiculous beyond the suggestion of arming teachers with guns. It has taken somewhat of a racialized turn. What’s bad, is that this racial slant is now being used as a tool on both sides of the argument.
Now I mentioned in an earlier post how Ann Coulter the remark in an interview with Sean Hannity, that America’s gun violence problem is more of a problem of having a certain “demographic,” than the notion of their being too many guns in the country. As you can imagine, she wasn’t referring to America’s white population as being problematic. Instead, as pretty much all racists do, they blame every problem in the country on minorities, and the evil white liberals who enable them. So with that in mind, you could imagine my astonishment to find out that right-wing pro-gun enthusiasts had launched a “What Would Django Do?” campaign, to counter the advocates for tougher gun laws in the United States.
Yes, the very people who are not-so-friendly to the descendants of slaves who overwhelmingly voted for President Barack Obama, are now using a movie about a Negro slave with a gun to advance their cause for freedom as given by the second amendment — yes, that really happened, folk.
The company behind the nationwide pro-firearms event Gun Appreciation Day has plans for a new follow-up effort meant to target minorities: “What Would Django Do?”
Following Gun Appreciation Day — a Jan. 19 event that called for supporters to rally for the right to bear arms — president of the Republican consulting firm Political Media, Larry Ward, plans to launch “What Would Django Do?,” a campaign targeting minorities in the gun debate, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Ward has partnered with Jonathan David Farley, principal of the “progressive” Warren Group, for the “What Would Django Do?” effort, which they hope to develop into a nonprofit charity.
“We’ll make sure we aren’t violating copyrights, and if we are, we’ll have to change the name,” Ward told THR. “But Django is perfect for what we’re trying to do, which is to promote gun rights to minorities. We’ll tackle the issue on the Democrats’ own turf.” (source)
As absurd as this sounds, you must admit it’s a lot better than Republicans getting together and hosting a meeting on minority outreach at a former plantation. After all, black folks are into that whole idea of having a gun or two if someone has the idea to bring back slavery. But nonetheless, there’s a bit of irony that borders on hypocrisy coming from this move. Why? Well for one it’s silly, because back in the day, states did all they could to ensure that African slaves were not armed. Secondly, when recent attempts to infringe upon the right to vote by black folk with the introduction of Voter ID laws, none of these nut jobs stood with said minority group to fight. Yeah, in the last election cycle, voting was reduced to a privilege, but today, the second amendment is sacrosanct, untouchable, and should not be regulated — yep, equal protection, right?
Which brings me to our beloved champion of freedom, justice, and equality, Rev. Al Sharpton. Did you happen to catch Al and Marc Morial of the National Urban League’s press conference on gun control? Don’t worry, if you haven’t, you can check it out down below. But at any rate, it seems that certain black folk have stepped up to the plate to counter the gun-toting crazies on the right-wing. And of course, the White House’s favorite
lap dog mouthpiece when communicating to the black community was front and center, much to the delight of his handlers at 1600 Pennsylvania Av.
This from The Daily Caller:
Following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new national assault weapons ban, saying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated.
“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when asked by TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill.
“And we absolutely think that the idea of banning a military style assault weapon, a weapon that I am confident that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never laid their eyes on, is not inconsistent with the rights of those who self-protect, those who shoot, who want to participate in sporting and hunting,”
“No one has been more aggressive in our defense of the Constitution than this nation’s civil rights leaders. …We respect the Second Amendment,” Morial added. “None of these provisions speak in absolute terms.”
TheDC asked Rev. Sharpton if he agreed with Morial’s comments.
“Absolutely, I mean if you look at the Second Amendment it was that you would have militia to protect yourself in case the government came and attacked citizens,” he responded.
“First of all, if the government were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let’s be serious. We’re in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that.”
“People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued. “And I think that for those that use the Second Amendment [they] are conceding that they have no argument on why you need a magazine with 100 rounds of ammunition or 30 rounds of ammunition.”
Sharpton also said “everybody is regulated with every right,” using airports as an example.
“I don’t have the right to tell them at the airport that I cite the Constitution so I’m not showing you my ID and walk through,” he said.
Okay, so what’s wrong about what Sharpton said? Well, how about me starting with the obvious hypocrisy of him stating that “People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country.” Now this is funny. It is because this is coming from the same man who fought against recent attempts to infringe upon the right to vote by implementing Voter ID laws. Aside from me mentioning this earrlier in the post, do you remember that? Yeah, just like we all argued, voting or the right to vote is the most fundamental rights protected by the constitution. I’ve said it, Attorney General Eric Holder has said it, and even Rev. Al Sharpton has said it as well. So why now the sudden flip-flop? I mean, if no constitutional right is exempt from regulation as Sharpton said, why then did he fight to protect the attempted disenfranchisement of potential voters in the last election cycle? What’s even funnier, is how he used the same argument about flying and airports posited by proponents of Voter ID. Maybe I’m wrong, but I remember people like Sharpton arguing the point that entering an airport is not a right, but instead a privilege. See what I’m saying? Hypocritical?
So why would Sharpton make what is possibly the most egregious statement of his career? Short answer: it’s because the president is black. In other words, having received a seat at the table otherwise seen as access to the White House. With the issue of gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Sharpton taking up this cause as Obama’s number one ally in the black community — a community which has seen more than it’s fair share of gun violence — gives Obama an easy out on addressing gun violence in communities of color directly. Why? Because if the face of the gun violence victims continues to be twenty elementary school children from Newtown, Ct. as opposed to Anyhood USA. Obama is guaranteed continued majority support for new gun control legislation. The real tragedy here, however, is that much of the proposed legislation will do very little to address the problem of gun violence in cities like Chicago. Why? Because tougher gun laws don’t create jobs or improve the economic opportunities of residents of these communities. And this is particularly sad, when you think about how black folks are being pimped by both sides in the gun control debate But hey, don’t tell that to Al Sharpton or the gun nuts that I said so, Okay?
Here’s to hoping that Voter ID thing never comes up again…