• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        Black Panthers in California were famously armed, until Ronald Reagan signed the NRA-supported “Mulford Act” which prohibited them from carrying loaded weapons.

        There were similar racial motivation behind the wave of legal prohibitions on concealment in the late 19th century. The thinking was that only “criminals” needed to hide the fact that they were armed; “honest” and “law abiding” people had no need to hide their weapons from other “honest” and “law abiding” citizens or the police. The supporters of these laws didn’t make it a secret that their intentions were to disarm former slaves, who would certainly draw unwanted attention from racists if they attempted to carry openly as the law allowed.

        Before the emancipation proclamation, the only restrictions on guns were based on criminal conviction and race, specifically, the disarmament of “Negroes” and “Indians”.

          • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s “gun control” and then there’s “gun control”. Disarming people because you’re afraid of them and disarming people that have a criminal record and mental health issues are not the same thing.

            • Arcka@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              disarming people that have a criminal record

              This is already the law.

              mental health issues

              As NAMI says:

              The truth is that the vast majority of violence is not perpetrated by people with mental illness — in fact, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime or self-inflicted injury. The myth that people with mental illness are violent perpetuates stigma and distracts from the real issues.

        • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          NRA-Supported

          That’s a bit reductive, the NRA was a casual gun club when that happened. In response to them supporting the Mulford Act, the membership overthrew the leadership and turned it into the very political organization

          The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act. It’s the same as when modern Republicans claim to be the party of Lincoln

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The NRA post the 1977 Revolt at Cincinnati would never support the Mulford Act.

            There was a presidential race three years after the “Revolt”. The NRA chose to endorse a candidate in that race. Given what we discussed so far, (and knowing I involuntarily rolled my eyes so hard that I sprained them after reading your quoted claim above), can you tell me which presidential candidate the NRA endorsed in 1980?

            That’s right, sports fans, the Mulford Act supposedly had gun owners revolting against NRA leaders in '77, but by '80, they were endorsing the asshole who had signed it.

            In 2012, there was exactly one presidential candidate in the race who had previously signed a gun ban. That candidate was the one who somehow “earned” NRA endorsement.

            The NRA is a Republican front that occasionally masquerades as a gun rights organization, and its members are suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, repeatedly going back to their abuser.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Before 1977, the NRA supported Reagan’s Mulford Act.

                After 1977, the NRA supported Reagan’s presidency.

                You do understand that these aren’t two people who both happened to be named Reagan, right? You are aware that both of these Reagans are actually the same person?

                “Well, I know he fucked us over in 1967, but he can change! And if we don’t support him now, he might not be there when we need him!”

                It was despicable for the NRA to support him in 1980. It was despicable for the NRA to support Romney in 2012. The Revolt in '77 was the membership calling the police against an abusive husband, then refusing to press charges.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That it happened? No, not a matter of opinion.

                But post-revolt NRA still backed the Governor who signed the Mullford Act when he ran for President just 3 years after the Revolt at Cincinnati. So clearly the supposed goals of post-revolt NRA weren’t so important as to not support any and every Republican to follow.

      • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        What I’ve always thought would make an interesting alternative-history story would be if the Native Americans (or aboriginals in any place really) had something akin to a modern compound bow.

        I’ve been shooting bows since I was six. I’ve also fired matchlock smoothbore guns. The matchlock is more powerful, but less accurate, slower to fire, noisy, it takes some setup before you can fire it the first time. Compound bows are crazy accurate in the right hands, and some can launch an arrow weighing 40-50 grams at 100 meters per second. Add a sharpened tip and it will penetrate a lot of armor, too.

    • Captain Howdy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same! I actually volunteer with an organization called Operation Blazing Sword where we teach LGBTQ+ folks how to safely use firearms by taking them to the gun range and providing ammunition for practice.

      Banning guns keeps the people who most need to protect themselves from being able to do so.

      Gun control was started in the US as a racist measure to make it difficult for black Americans to protect themselves.

    • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry if you’re being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?

      • SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The bourgeoisie takes rights away from the proletariat. The bourgeoisie have outlived there usefulness and the proletariat should rise up against them.

        • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but how come workers in Europe, who don’t have guns, have 100X the rights of workers in the US, who do have guns?

          Is it because people with guns are scared little pussies?

          Because, to be honest, that’s how it looks!

          • SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In the US the bourgeoisie is so powerful and have brain washed the people so much that the bourgeoisie feels comfortable letting the proletariat fuck around with guns. All the gun owners are so caught up with being scared of the people the bourgeoisie told them to be scared of that they don’t realize that lgbtq+ community and other races are still more or less in the same bloat and that the bourgeoisie harms them all. One day the tools of the oppressors will be used by the oppressed to gain control.

            • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              One day

              I’ll be honest mate, I’m old and I’ve been hearing this for forty years.

              All that’s happened is that public shootings have increased, dramatically

              • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I unfortunately agree with this take. Blips of independence here and there get crushed by inexorable legal/monetary punishment of those who disagree with the system.

                I wait quietly for the right opportunity, but am concerned I’ll be waiting for a long time.

              • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a national issue, not a worker’s rights issue, unless you’re saying that employment is required for you to have healthcare. All citizens should have healthcare, regardless of their employment status.

                • Instigate
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s a worker’s rights issue when your healthcare is tied to your employment, as is the case for the majority of Americans.

                  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    And I’m saying it shouldn’t be tied to your employment. Every citizen should have universal healthcare options, regardless of their employment status. Therefore it’s a national issue, and not an worker’s rights issue. If someone is disabled, or unemployed, or a small business owner, or whatever, they should still have healthcare. Life saving services should be completely unrelated to your work, or lack thereof.

                    Edit: and as far as I know, that’s how it works in Europe, so it’s not a right that European workers have, it’s a right that all citizens have. Hopefully that clarifies why I said it’s a national issue and not a worker’s rights issue.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              Vacation, illness/disability benefits that pay you for sick days regardless of your job, livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment…

              • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment

                I wasn’t aware that Europe has such a thing. Which European countries? All of them? Certainly it’s being paid for somehow. Americans get retirement in the form of social security. That does require that you pay into it, but I’m assuming the European version does as well, just as a general tax instead of a specific charge. Is the European version based on how much you made while working? What is the program called?

                • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I said livable. Social security is not livable.

                  It’s paid for in Germany through a tax, but not personal investment in a retirement account (maybe my phrasing was unclear). The level of retirement pay is dependent on the time you worked and your pay, but it’s complicated. Someone who works full time for minimum wage will still get enough for healthful survival into old age. Each European country handles things differently.

                  Also, parental leave, I don’t know how I missed that one.

                  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I was pretty shocked when I learned that Germany offers 6 months of paternity leave, fully paid. When my son was born I got half a Friday off and was back at work on Monday. That isn’t most people’s experience here though. Most decent jobs have similar benefits to all the ones you mentioned, but they’re attached to the job, not workers rights. So those were some good points you made.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        What rights do you think we don’t have in the USA? I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.

          • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I actually have done that in the USA. Emergency departments have to provide medical treatment to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.

            Additionally, when I was in poverty I was able to get very discounted health services at the county health department. They provide healthcare with an income-based rate, so that poor people can afford it.

            Your attempt has been debunked, good day.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yup, I guess all those people with medical debt are just fuckin liars, and we actually do have free healthcare

              • Whoresradish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is that both are telling the truth. Some hospitals have discounts for low income people and others don’t. Some medical emergencies are easy to write off while others aren’t. If you don’t have decent insurance in the US it becomes kind of a lottery system, which in the end makes it harder to change voters opinions.

                • Wogi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Or if you do have decent insurance and also have cancer.

                  Medical needs extend far beyond the occasional emergency

                • Wogi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Just waiting for the day when my Dr hands me a screen and tells me it’s gonna ask me a question before looking away like a dip shit right before writing a prescription

            • shrugal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              How about getting good healthcare outside of emergencies or living in poverty?

              • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I have always had access to good healthcare in the poorest part of the USA actually. My health needs have all been taken care of well, as have the health needs of every member of my family.

                I don’t understand why all you people think we don’t have good healthcare in the USA. We literally have the top doctors in the world here, and the best medical technology that exists.

                • shrugal@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Kinda funny how some Americans always confuse “having” and “having access”. But I guess you’re the one person in the whole country who gets good healthcare, because pretty much everyone else tells a different story. Good for you I suppose.

            • Froyn@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Depending on which state your in, determines your individual freedoms.

              In Michigan:
              I can light up a joint on my porch and wave to the passing cop car.
              I cannot legally operate an unlicensed vehicle on city streets.
              I cannot launch my own aircraft.
              I cannot turn Right on Red.

              I’m fairly certain that you do not have the freedumb to cook meth in your kitchen.

              I will concede the “I can do whatever I want; once.” argument. Kind of like how I could go outside and fire off a few rounds into the air. Sure, I CAN do it, but it’s illegal for me to do so for public safety reasons.

              Also, you cannot strike a member of Congress regardless of the state.

              • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You may be right about some of that but I’m downvoting you for saying “freedumb” because I hate that dumb malapropism.

                Freedom is never dumb. Dumb is being against freedom.

          • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Abortion is legal in the USA actually. It might require a drive to a neighboring state for some states’ residents but it is still something that Americans have the right to do.