So glad I live in Canada and not gun obsessed America. It’s perhaps the only country where guns have higher priority than human beings.
25
Um, the paradigmatic gun owner is not a white man in cities like St. Louis, Baltimore and Chicago.
14
The Virginia protesters are a dangerous example of America's love of guns.
But a black American is still - factually, statistically - far more likely to murdered by another black American with a gun. Facts don't lie.
The real issue is getting rid of all guns.
8
Spot on, thank you, Jamelle Bouie. But I have to say the first phrase of your second paragraph filled me with dread: "Walking through the crowds." Please don't walk through these crowds. The governor may have locked up some fascists ahead of time, but way too many supremacists still swell the gun-rights ranks. Next time, send a drone.
12
In August of 1619 the first slaves landed in Virginia. What a disgrace that these white men would feel no shame in demonstrating in the same state 400 years later on MLK day. Embolden by a confederate president, this rally shows how far as a nation we HAVEN'T come.
10
Look at these men. Look at these white men. Look at their camouflage. Look at their need to exude machismo, manliness, stereotypical cartoonish displays of supposed strength. Military gear and clothing, swat team belts, holsters, and weapons.
Don't tread on me warning flags with dangerous venomous snakes!!! Flags threatening anyone who would try and disagree with them. T-shirts threatening bloodshed.
I look at these men the same color as me and I see clowns and fools. I see laughably childish grownups hiding behind their toys thinking they're "real men".
I see mostly rural America where the need to blame "others" is a common thread in conversation and they meet in small groups reassuring each other that "None of them "others" will git me and my family cause' I'll blow them away. And after I shoot them, I'll be waiting for those elite liberals or worse yet the big bad government to try and take my manhood (guns) from me."
As I picture their macho rants among each other about how they will stand their ground, I chuckle to myself as I imagine a fictional scenario...This scenario is always the same. They are standing on their porches waving their flags with all their arsenals, daring anyone who disagrees with them to just try to come and git em'...30 seconds later a drone turns them and their arsenals to dust.
Of course I never would wish to see this happen, but I do find it laughable that they really believe they could fight off a drone or a military attack with their guns.
11
I've often wondered what sickness causes these angry white men (most of whom disdain education and believe their race superior) to cling (literally) to their guns. But I realize it's more of a fetish, and a supreme insecurity among these failures in life that they are not relevant. And they're right. Without these shows of faux masculinity, they'd disappear entirely. Gus ARE their manhood. Sad.
9
A couple of black kids skateboarding in the corner get arrested, child gets shot by cops for playing with a plastic pistol. But it's perfectly fine for thousands of NRA types to wander around with loaded automatic weapons. Shouldn't the national guard or even the military be called out? Shouldn't these guys be rounded up and locked up for terrorizing the city? Perhaps, different rules apply.
17
You tackle the issue of gun ownership right on the money! Imagine if these people were mainly black and brown making such outlandish demands...Most likely, they will be sending the Army and accusing them of trying to overthrow the government. History never lies...
4
In the beginning the right to keep and bear arms outside of a well- trained militia in America originated in s tiny rural nation of farmers full of enslaved black Africans and free brown Indigenous nations and the threat of the return of the recently beaten world colonial British superpower.
A nation without a full time professional military. With the law enforcement focused on the Fugitive Slave Act recovery of escaped enslaved black Africans.
About 44, 000 Americans die of gunshot every year. And 2/3rds are suicides involving overwhelmingly involving involving white men and veterans who tend to use handguns..Mass shooters and serial killers alao tend to be white men.
About 95% of gunshot homicides involve people of the same color aka race, ethnicity and national origin. Of the remaining 5% they are roughly equally distributed between the color aka races.
2
I wonder how the commercial and political forces that encourage/incite these white men to march in protest of the so-called assault on second amendment rights would feel if the march had been largely comprised of black men carrying assault rifles through the Richmond streets?
5
The Iconic Man With a Gun Is a White Man. Dumb and dangerous could be added to the proposition without doing any harm to the argument. Although, it might have made for a too long headline.
6
just another Trump rally.
6
You’re right. So what?
3
"What if this were 22,000 black nationalists"
This happened in California in 1967.
From Snopes
in 1967 the NRA supported a statewide ban on open carry in California after armed members of the Black Panther Party started patrolling city streets to counter police brutality.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/
7
I have wanted to gather a group of old hippies, arm them to the teeth, and just go hang out in the NRA offices. See what happens.
It turns out, though, that the one place the NRA doesn't want to see any open carry, or concealed carry, is in their offices. I guess they know how dangerous those things are.
The 2nd Amendment freaks who showed up in Richmond have been scared to death that Democrats are coming for their guns.
You know who is going to be coming for their guns? The right wing fascist government they seem to be pushing for. A totalitarian dictator is the last person who wants to see an armed populace.
There is no NRA in Russia, in spite of the donations to our own NRA. There is no private ownership of guns in Russia. And if t rump gets his way, there will be none here, either.
3
Enlightening. Thank you.
2
This is becoming a disturbing pattern in the Times' editorial pages. Nothing actually happened at the protest. No one was harmed, no one was threatened, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with race. But, desperate to turn everything into a white supremacy issue, we're told that gun rights advocates are..."paradigmatic"? Give it a rest.
19
I am willing to give up all my firearms as soon as the elites give up their armed body guards.... I'll just wait right here.
6
The saying ‘if you’re white it is alright, but if you are brown you will shot down’ unfortunately still resonates in America.
4
Excellent argument to show the utter hypocrisy, and worse, the explicit racism of most of the pro-gun movement.(yes I know some responsible hunters -not white, btw - but these are the scary folks terrorizing us)
Black men who are even ‘thought’ to have a gun are shot dead on a regular basis, out of self-defense, maligned as thugs;
no one is claiming they have the right to bear arms. Whites, meanwhile, naturally carry them only for self-defense, not commit crimes; put 2 and 2 together, the only logical conclusion of this ideology is that whites need to be armed against blacks (or other non-whites, such as Muslims) who might be armed and thus up to no good. It was no coincidence that arms sales went up with Obama’s election, and he was hardly the only liberal who wanted to get rid of guns; but the only Black with presidential
power.
3
Trump's people.
3
Does your take on this include the myriad of people of color who were represented there (including the Black Panthers). Or is this another case where Bouie thinks those people of color don't matter because they don't fit his narrative? Or even more scary are you just disappointed there was no violence at the rally to bolster your anti-gun narrative?
12
IMHO
I am more afraid to engage strangers at events or in day to day exchanges about social and economic issues and politics.
In Central Florida .... we have a home in an area on the Atlantic coast near Daytona Speedway .
We are afraid ...... literally afraid
To place any “ Amy for President” signs on our front lawn. It will be taken or destroyed. All Andrew Gillum signs in 2018 were removed. I saw only republican election signs. If a Democrat’s sign was placed with the rest in a public place on a corner ..... I would check next day and it would be gone. Andrew Gillum won the governorship but the voting in Florida is so mired in abuse and nefarious counts etc. that he lost by a slim margin. Then the legal system in Florida at Scott’s behest attacked Gillum in a scandal they contrived. So he would back down from challenging the slim count. He was afraid . He has family and a future in politics he didn’t want to give up .
In Ct. our home state ......there exists in most of our gerrymandered 169 towns a group of rabid mean spirited caucus republicans. Some of them at one meeting I attended were in their 30’s to 50’s and confrontational with the chair about a gun rights platform he refused to place in the election platform for municipal elections. They referred to themselves as “ The Base”. One said our local caucus in a town of 45000 should support “ the base” message so there..... “is unity in messaging. “
I left the Republican Party since that Awakening !Amy Win Big , pray!
4
A country where armed white conservatives (or perhaps supremacists?) roam the street trying to intimidate their political opposites is not a free country, never in a million years. To call America a free country is a really bad joke. The world is not that stupid, you know.
4
The guns are all they think they have a right to in America today. Perhaps, the government could work to give us all a brighter future, healthcare, a quality education and these weird white men with big guns would find something better to do.
2
White. And a man.
Says so much about our society.
Superb article!
Yeah, these paranoid, ill-informed, angry clowns are a self-appointed "security" against "tyranny." Not.
2
Pure speculation to serve the writer’s agenda. And,yes,there were armed black men participating in the demonstration but the media censored them out of the reports in order to push their anti gun and anti white agenda.
12
While I wasn't there myself, I'm sure there were plenty of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other non whites open carrying and protesting the various infringements both parties have put forth since 1934. I'm happy the author brought up the Mulford Act signed by then governor of California and former president Ronald Reagan in response to Black Panthers open carrying in response to police brutality. Ignorant gun rights supporters champion this racist man (on record) even though he helped single handedly limit the 2nd Amendment in California, and nationwide with the 1986 machine gun ban, armor piercing ammo bans, supporting the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and saying on record a machine gun isn't needed for home defense and is not a sporting weapon. The 2nd Amendment isn't about home defense, hunting, sporting purposes, and other government excuses/rhetoric. It's to combat tyrants, dictators, oligarchs, and prevent armed Gestapo like and jack booted government thugs from being able to do whatever they want. They get to power with the help of "democracy", aka mob rule, where 51% of voters can limit or take away the rights of the other 49% using disingenuous and false promises of security and "public safety". I've been fed up with Democrats and Republicans alike, and their failures to respect and uphold the 2nd Amendment and why it is actually in the Constitution in the first place.
5
These people are terrorists. They are trying to scare all of us so that no sensible gun laws are passed!
And why have this on when we celebrate Dr. King?
But I bet they'll tell us that it has nothing to do with racism.
Yea! Right!
3
Let them have their rallies, let them have their sanctuary cities. Pass the laws and they'll be criminals and sooner or later they'll have to deal with that. At the very least, it will keep them from bringing these illegal weapons out in the open.
1
It’s clear as day - 2nd Amendment is for white people only.
1
I live in Massachusetts. I have never seen anyone while living in this state, openly carrying a firearm. I have seen hunters with shotguns, in the woods of Massachusetts during hunting season, but I have never seem anyone openly carrying a holstered firearm, or shotgun or rifle, in the street. BB rifles don’t count.
But in N.H., Maine, and Vermont, and Connecticut, and all over the south and the west I’ve seen plenty of white men idiots waving around loaded firearms carelessly, and foolishly. I haven’t seen one person of color doing it.
3
And where their paranoia and blind compulsion to own guns comes from Mr. Bouie, is a mystery to us all.
3
Indeed. I wonder how much authorities would have tolerated this mob with guns if they were black instead of white as Wonder bread.
2
Jamelle,
I have some African-American buddies from the Marine Corps who were there in Richmond. A few weirdos like any protest, but most people are just there to support civil liberties and gun ownership rights. The range I shoot at in Philadelphia is majority minority.
The Second Amendment is a beautiful thing, long denied to racial minorities. Thankfully we are fixing that as a society. Recommend you get out of your bubble.
11
It really irritated me that these white gun lovers decided to stage their protest on a holiday when we honor a great black man. And I got even more irritated when I remembered that Martin Luther King's life was brutally ended by a white man with a gun.
200
i for one , would love to see 22,000 black men or 22,00 women
heavily armed marching in protest !
4
Clearly Second Amendment “rights” only apply to white people.
2
"I want my guns."
"I want my guns."
How silly this all is.
No one is out to get you.
You guys don't matter that much to anyone.
Stop playing with guns before you shoot yourselves in the foot and I gotta pay for it because you don't have insurance.
You're honestly not that important.
4
They think they have been ordained to protect Country and the virtue of White Women. They act like they live in a cabin on the range surrounded by hostiles.If you asked many of them what is the second amendment they would scratch their heads. Most of it is Boys with their Toys.
2
Fake news. There were black men and women there protesting and armed openly. Go fly a kite.
9
Bravo!
Sure. . . visit Baltimore and see if the iconic figure with a gun is a white person.
10
Funny how Panthers got their guns taken away.
1
“Good guy with a gun” stopping a crime only applies to white guys. I feel sorry for the black guy in braids who is a “good guy with a gun” trying to stop a crime. He’ll be shot by police as soon as they arrive.
1
All of these so-called protesters do is to remind us that America is a primitive, barbaric and paranoid country, where gun ownership is bizarrely considered some sort of God-given divine right. The very fact that this macho and fascist demonstration was held on MLK day--commemerating a black martyr assassinated by a racist while man--shows just how ignorant and yes, evil, these people are.
4
When the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide by gun, I don’t think this bunch of white gun nuts is our biggest gun control problem.
9
“[The United States] has always glorified violence, unless the negro had the gun.”
James Baldwin
3
I’m willing to sacrifice the contributions of those who fancy themselves patriots. I’ll say this—-the regions of the country who suffered a temporary dearth of gun nuts in their respective communities must have felt safe for the first time in a good while.
2
Why is it that violent protests with vehicles burning and looting is less triggering to Democrats than a peaceful protest with men carrying guns?
10
Excellent. Thank you!
Ridiculous. There were plenty of African American, gay, Asian, etc. 2A supporters at the peaceful, heavily armed Richmond rally. Giving speeches, talking to the press, lots of photos. This is a fear-mongering, disingenuous article.
13
For about five years, I have been waging my own little private war on the culture of the white guy with a gun. What I am doing?
I have stopped watching entertainment that features ANYONE with a gun.
Ask yourself this. When was the last time your personal narrative featured a gun? How many times during the day, week, month do you think about a gun? When was the last time you saw someone with a gun pointed at someone in real life? When was the last time you loaded a gun, handled a gun?
If you are like most normal people, the answer is not that often if ever. If you think about our daily lives, here is an example of items that make much more of an appearance:
- our remote control
- our milk bottles
- baseball bats
- computers
- photo frames
- makeup brushes
- pencils
A silly list? OF COURSE. But my point is a simple one: guns are not a part of the daily American life. Yet they are a standard in almost ALL popular movies and TV shows.
So I am hosting a one-woman protest. I will no longer watch any show that shows guns as though they are a given. They are certainly not a given in my home or my life and I have decided to disinvite them from my entertainment as well.
I urge you to join my stupid little protest.
.....and vote Democrat in 2020.
7
The guys in this photo are all wearing "pusses." They are faces of "once I was a child, and now I am a serious grownup with a serious gun. I'm not very happy, not at home, not at work, not at all. Can I shoot something? Maybe that'll make me smile."
I just feel sorry for 'em.
But I support their right to assemble. Knock yourselves out, boys.
5
Well, looking at the photograph I guess it is time to remove my facial hair. Granted, I keep it really short, but it is hitting home.
1
Bring back the Black Panthers. Nothing will inspire gun control legislation more than the sight of heavily armed black men marching through white suburbs.
8
We sink further as a nation.
These protesters are embarrassing.
1
Stop spewing this racist vitriol. I belong to a gun club many members if not 50% are people of color and law abiding citizens. Stop seeing racism where there isn't any, its divisive.
The police had a light touch because there was no violence. Would you have them suppress a peaceful protest? Would you have them do that at a peaceful protest of people of color?
There is no idealized gun owner. There are only lawful and illegal gun ownership.
15
Absolutely on point.
2
Wonder how many 'people of color' joined in the event?
The stance of these swaggering, camouflaged gun nuts is much more about taking away the liberties of the majority of American citizens than it is or ever was about protecting their “sacred liberties.” Their hypocrisy is breathtaking to behold.
1
What does this sacred "Second amendment" actually mean? I know what it says, what does it mean?
Power comes from the barrel of a gun! The right to menace shall not be infringed.
1
I would encourage blacks, latinos and liberals to arm themselves. You don't want a handgun and you don't need an assault rifle.
These guys are still fighting the civil war. That is why they like Trump, because he is destroying the country that destroyed their country, the confederate states of America.
1
But surely, Mr. Bouie, bigotry (and hyprocrisy) is now okay in today's down-is-up, black-is-white, truth-is-fake world, right?
The image formed of left-ish "socialist" libruls demonstrating via open-carry for health care for all makes for a fun exercise!
Excellent piece.
2
The photo says it all. A bunch of middle age and older white men with nothing much better to do with their lives than walk around in their camouflage outfits toting guns.
If they truly wanted to do something to "protect" their gun rights they'd go to the polls, and call their reps. But they know their on the losing end of the future, not just their gun rights, but their way of life.
This country is not a male white only one now, just look around. We have women running for office everywhere. We have African America, Asians, Hispanics, and folks from the Mideast, all representing America.
Step outside your cocoon and look at the change
2
The Jim Crow South prevented Blacks from defending themselves by denying them Second Amendment rights. Virginia is harking back to their tradition of slavery.
Based on that lead photo, are beards a prerequisite for, or an outcome from, owning a gun?
1
These men bully and bluster, and think they are so brave, but at the root they are cowards, deathly afraid of life without their precious guns to protect them. It's no coincidence that their dear leader, just like them, is a spineless coward whose "gunfire" is a daily barrage of twitter posts.
3
Dude. Get some guns and your buddies and march around proclaiming your gun “rights”. Who cares? These goofs will sit around their whole lives just waiting for their chance to fight the gubment that wants to take their guns. In the meantime most of those guns will just gather dust or if they’re used for anything, will be used in tragic accidents or suicides. Now if they were marching to keep an independent newspaper going, something actually helps keep us free, that would be something.
1
We don't need to imagine the American reaction to a lot of Black men bearing arms. All that's needed is a memory long enough to reach back to the Black Panthers.
4
It amazes me the number of people automatically point their finger at racist white men. The number of people who assume this peaceful demonstration of opposition to the infringement on a constitutional right of the people is based on racial intent is astounding. The amount of race baiting and finger pointing amongst the populace is sickening and if the people commenting on this tread are the measure of an American then I am ashamed to call myself one. What happened to liberty and justice for all? You are literally siding with the stripping of your rights over the preservation of the constitution and the bill of rights that is what make this country so great. Absolutely sickening.
77
If those men in that picture think they look "tough", I've got news for them - I see afraid people.
2
These pseudo-militarists are probably motivated by the same fear expressed to me by an avid Trump supporter, who said he was terrified that Trump would be “the last white male president.”
1
Open carry laws and opposition to gun control are driven by racism. White men using lethal instruments to intimidate and keep others in their place.
1
I have come to believe, the underlining impetus is white supremacy, from day 1 of the democratic experiment. It may have cooled down but trump has inflamed it with his ignorance and his followers equally ignorant, ride right along.
Oh how we forget when the Black Panthers marched on the State capital in Sacramento along side the NRA for the right to own and carry firearms in California.
The racist gun control act of 1968 was mostly pasted because of that protest and the establishment of the time (Ronald Reagan) did not want a armed African American community.
How things have changed.
1
To quote a phrase commonly used by the Irish: "the absolute state of these eejits".
Nothing....absolutely nothing about them reflects the attributes that routinely drew the best and brightest to this nation from all corners of the world.
They're small, angry, frightened, boringly homogenous, and insular. Armed to repel. In the Age of Trump, I suppose that's the point.
"The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First." Well said! Technology has made the Second Amendment a mortal threat to our First Amendment rights.
What's changed? The technology. A man carrying a single-shot muzzle loader is capable of a rate of fire of 3 rounds a minute. When the Second was written, that was the highest technology. Nobody dreamed of the assault rifle - a Nazi invention in WWII military weaponry.
Give these guys muskets and they're relatively harmless. The First Amendment is safe vs. smoothbore muskets.
But it isn't safe to object to a man with a weapon of mass killing power.
2
Yes I've thought that if there was an effort to arm every African American with a gun, we would quickly see strict gun control laws.
1
“Iconic man... is white”?
Yet it’s a bit weird that a majority of non-suicide gun deaths in the US are blacks killed by other blacks. I would normally not bring up race, but you did, so I thought it was important point out.
(For what it’s worth, I am neither ‘white’ nor ‘black’.)
7
One of the features of contemporary racism is that it is masked. It pleads innocent, it always has an alibi. Such is the way with these "gun rights" advocates, who look so much like Klansmen in their face-masking apparel it's not even funny. Nevertheless, the use the alibi of their "gun rights" to align themselves however preposterously with civil rights advocates of the past. It's an insult to an injury. But Bouie tracks their racism and their hatred all the way back to its origin in this column, using his remarkable understanding of American history. He's the Times' best columnist.
2
Insightful here is the amused and cynical commentary, so dangerous in its inherent comfort and willingness to dismiss the intentional show of white power by white men, tinged with such a long history of racial and misogynistic terror.
1
Exclusionary journalism is not a good look.
What about the Black Guns Matter crowd? They were there. How about a wide variety of other minorities and oppressed people who were visually present upon cursory Google image search?
Sure, white men were, in fact, the majority at that rally. But to exclude the diversity present is overtly dishonest and divisive.
5
Some black guys with guns were shown on twitter. But yes, it would be a whole different story if all those people carrying guns were protesting black or brown people. Gun bans would get really big really fast.
Thank you for your insightful writing.
I just reminded a white friend about the black Vet shot and killed in an Alabama mall shooting. In a sea of white faces openly carrying assault rifles ....he was shot, and an "OOps, my bad" was issued. Is still arguing on Facebook, trying to justify it, I've moved on.
The second amendment effectively disabled the first amendment here, a Trumpian dream with rumblings of a fascist state and the fantasy of a white supremacist nation. I don’t like it. I don’t want it. Gun owners should have to buy liability insurance, just like we all do with cars. The insurance companies know how to write in sensible controls into their policies and then perhaps a hint of sanity might develop.
2
The gentleman in the blue jacket needs a gun as he cannot run .
A white man with a gun can always hide behind the fiction of the Second Amendment, while a black man with a gun is a criminal or worse, a threat to public safety and a target for summary execution by the police.
This contradiction is proof of America's ongoing racism.
Don't believe me? Go ask Tamir Rice.
2
"As I watched the rally, it was impossible not to think through counterfactuals. What if these were left-wing protesters instead? Twenty-two thousand members of the Democratic Socialists of America, armed and threatening insurrection if the Commonwealth of Virginia didn’t establish a system for single-payer health care. How would the state authorities react? Would they give them a wide berth or would they assume hostile intent?"
The answer to the hypothetical: dead black people. THAT is what the result of "what if" would be. I'd wager many murcans are unaware of the history of California's ban on open carry of public weapons. Well, banned if you're Black, that is.
That these weaponized white supremacists forced others to leave the public sphere, for rightful fear of violence by these white thugs, is a tragedy. That they knew they could not/would not be protected by law enforcement is a shrieking alarm.
2
As a self-deported Virginian 30 years ago, this seems quite simplistic article.
That sure is one sad and sorry looking motley crew. All they have and all they will ever have are guns, which is why they are so passionate about being allowed to arm themselves to the teeth with as many guns of whatever caliber and with as many bullets they can jam in a clip as possible. I guess just in case war breaks out and Virginia needs to stand up a militia of ignorants who are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot than be of any service to ol' Virginia.
I think New York City should secede. We should really not be obligated to live with people who value guns over life.
2
It's also not hard to imagine what would happen if people of color were to behave this we. We need only look at what happened to the Black Panther Party which advocated carrying weapons to defend themselves and their community, and many of whose members were harassed, arrested, or murdered by the police and/or the FBI.
Why have gun prohibition groups not leaned in to responsible gun ownership laws by simply sponsoring gun ownership from the brown folks and democratic socialists? It worked for Reagan after all, he bugabooed the Black Panthers so much reasonable gun laws were passed without a whimper. I welcome applying for a gun ownership subsidy once I show my DSA membership at the nearest FFL licensed dealer.
The fact is that there are large number of White men (in particular White heterosexual White men) who desire to start a race war in our nation. They have to be stopped at all costs.
1
What must be one of the greatest ironies of all time is the fact that at the NRA headquarters they have only half, the second half, of the 2nd amendment emblazoned outside for all comers to see. This wonton omission must be taken for what it is, a denial of the reality of what the framers of the constitution meant when they wrote “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (this has been omitted by the NRA at their HQ) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
2
The author has nailed it. Here in blue New Jersey I have heard the same line many times from gun aficionados: They know in their hearts that the day will come when people of color (not the term they use) will march on the white suburbs to rape their women and steal their stuff. That is harsh language, but an accurate description of what these people believe, and the primary reason for gun ownership in much of America.
2
Imagine bus loads of newly inducted, non felon, American citizen Crips and Bloods and MS13 members arrive at a gun show in Indiana and buy the place out and then proceed to Virginia to march for their gun rights. Would the NRA, Fox News and The Base and Red State support their 2nd amendment rights?
Virginia’s proposed gun laws are reasonable and it shouldn’t take a more deaths and fear to make the rest of the country see that.
I scoured the news and saw only white mustachioed slightly over-fed dudes at the protest. If I saw dudes like that walking down my street, I’d call the cops. CNN found a black guy to interview. I’m not sure they didn’t dig him out of the crowd just to appear evenhanded, or whether, because it was CNN, he was the only guy who’d talk to them. Either way, the symbolism bothered me: angry white guys armed to the teeth, protesting on a holiday inspired by a peace loving black guy who was gunned down. It didn’t seem right. I want a gun to protect myself against angry white guys armed to the teeth - and I’m a white guy.
1
the iconic man with a gun is a white man
-I'm sorry, but what does that mean?
Other than a swipe at white men, it's hard to know what the writer's point is.
3
"Light touch," "wide berth?" The governor declared a state of emergency for heavens sake!
2
OK
The iconic opera composer is a white man
The iconic artist at the Met is a a white man
The iconic computer scientist is a white man.
The iconic surgeon is a white man
The iconic author is a white man.
And... drumroll
The iconic suicide victim is a white man
The iconic homeless person is a white man
The iconic school drop out is a white man
The iconic drug addict is a white man
5
How does Mr. Bouie account for the conspicuous presence of numerous African-Americans in gun rights movement?
6
According to the Pew Research Center, “36% of whites report that they are gun owners, about a quarter of blacks (24%) and 15% of Hispanics say they own a gun.” Not all the gun rights advocates who who show up in Richmond were white nationalists. A few were African Americans. Members of the New Black Panther Party militia routinely show up armed with rifles and shotguns at Texas rallies and demonstrations. They are treated just like whites who show up armed at rallies and demonstrations.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
4
Sadly, no surprises here.
A violent nation of mass shooting racists and neo-Nazis all armed to the teeth.
A country awash in so many weapons that it will never be rid of them.
Behind the trigger, with an eye in the gunsights, one race and gender is predominant.
The rest, including law enforcement, sit back intimidated into inaction.
Yet again minorities and women who own guns are alienated by the anti civil rights movement.The women and minorities who own firearms see this article and realize that their opinions and existence dont matter.Your racism and sexism against white males must be a collective,if the gun owner doesn`t fit your stereotype then you ignore them.
1
What are these guys with guns afraid of? That brown people might be considered equal to them then they have nobody to trod upon?
1
Gun regulation really began with the arming of the Black Panthers. Pictures of Huey Newton and Bobby Seale armed frightened many people. The fastest way to get firearm regulation is to have an armed African American population.
What about all the guns on the streets of South Chicago and other inner cities across America? Guns are not just a white man problem, as they seem to a problem with the black and brown-men urban America. Let's be honest in our assessment of the gun problem in America, Mr. Bouie. Thank you.
9
The right to bear arms or just getting them illegally?
Guns will be here weather its a right or a crime.
It's easy to blame "the other'" but gun violence knows
no race, guns don't see their victims. People, White, Black,
and everyone else are either the victim or the criminal.
2
The questions posed: "What if these were left-wing protesters instead?", "What if this were 22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control?" and "How would the state authorities react?" cut to the heart of the matter. Mr. Bouie depicts the likely police response well, but what about our legislators? It is not hard to imagine that seeing armed minorities and leftists would finally spur our cowardly representatives to do something about sensible firearm legislation.
6
The image of a New Englander guarding his threshold with his flintlock and holy book, defending his liberty-loving and self-sufficient values, is fairly modern (1922). Nonetheless, 1922 predates any image of a Colonist being anything other than white and Christian.
It seems that some comments missed one of the points made. If 20,000 Black men and women showed up in camouflage carrying ARs and 50 Cal weapons the response from the authorities and the public would likely be much different.
6
Brilliant. Exactly right.
2
I recall being a little perplexed as a kid watching all the old western's. The white person who sold rifles to the Indians was always demonized even if it was just for the pure profit that the Indians could provide since they couldn't get these weapons any other way.
Trying to fight off rifles with bow and arrows or spears while they were being hounded off their territory it only made sense they would want some of that 2nd Amendment leveling of the field.
2
The media description of this as "peaceful" is driving me crazy. Thousands of people assembling and carrying weapons is not peaceful - it is a threat and a lot of us are getting sick of the threats from a minority of citizens who have become a cult (and I'm a white man who owns three guns for hunting). You don't need to bring the actual object you're lobbying for; beef lobbyists don't show up at capitols leading cows around. And as usual, this country has an enormous blind spot for what is considered allowed behavior by white men. If 20,000 black and brown men convene with weapons, it would be a very different story.
8
I see a whole lot of aging white men who may feel that they have role in this world, or anyway a diminished one, that their guns are meant to bolster. Sadly, it seems young white men are more inclined to use guns if they're depressed to murder a lot of other people, and the AR-15 helps implement that.
5
Their guns are for hunting people, not game.
3
Thanks to Mr. Bouie for the reminder that parts of our supposedly sacrosanct Constitution arose from compromise with Southern slave owners.
Second Amendment absolutists conveniently forget the first phrase of the amendment - " A well-regulated Militia." The Founders never intended for the "militia" to be outside the control of the state, much less used against the state. And how is a paranoid individuals strutting through a public space armed like a S.W.A.T. team "well-regulated"? Only a paranoid person needs that much fire-power in downtown Richmond.
The idea of Gunstock - six hours of peace and harmony - is baloney. It was a job fair for right-wing, white militia to make contacts and exchange business cards.
4
Powerful! More please!
2
22,000 people with weapons, and not a single violent incident or arrest. Compare this to what happens when Antifa decides to confront peaceful protestors whose programs they don't like, or a far-rightist gets in a car and decides to mow down a Heather Heyer. Bottom line: let all demonstrations be this peaceful. And if the black residents of inner city Baltimore and Chicago decided that they needed en masse gun training, purchasing, and rallying to counter the horrific violence being done in their neighborhoods -- violence that smears African-Americans everywhere, like it or not -- I'd donate. And I'm white.
5
Well said. The iconic gun owner is indeed a white male. Also we should recall how 150 years ago or so, guns were used to exterminate Native Americans.
2
The answer to Mr. Blow's question "What if this were 22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed," was answered when Reagan was Gov. of Calif. in 1967. Armed Black Panthers marched on Sacramento for essentially the same reason as this march.
Reagan had gun control laws past almost immediately!
2
Ironically, these gun-toting, iconic white guys decked out in their weekend hunting garb look like (are) those same tie-wearing, weak, full of hate and fear iconic guys in D.C. who call themselves Senators, and are having such a hard time with that simple principle called truth. The proverbial Tree of Life seems to be shaking mightily now, and the weak, weapon-dependent, prevaricating, purposeless among us WILL lose their grip and drop off. Good! The "Iconic Tree" then, perhaps, will resume growing upwards resisting the dread gravitational pull downwards of our overweight, lie-filled yesteryears' Iconic "was."
2
Absolutely correct.
I am seriously considering getting a gun license and taking shooting lessons. All of these fools are armed to the teeth and if something happens, I do not believe our government or law enforcement will protect the general public.
2
i should like to poll those gun marchers and ask them if they know what the actual process is to repeal a constitutional amendment
1
When Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, discussed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton on April 10, 2015 he said "one demographically-symbolic president is enough", he said all he needed to say about the true motivations of the NRA.
2
As an Australian all I can say is that the US seems to be suffering from a mass 'psychosis' when it comes to guns. Hate to say it but the term deplorable fits perfectly.
4
Mr. Bouie, I always read your columns because you always have something interesting and smart to say. Thank you.
1
HIS comment "but the paradigmatic gun owner is still a white man." is questionable since in 2016 alone, there were 7,881 black-on-black murders...most by guns.
5
Thanks for the article. I had the same exact intial reaction. What if the people carrying guns were people of color, or of the extreme left?
Perhaps to make a point, the radical left and NAACP should have an event armed to the teeth; however, with unloaded weapons so as not to give any redneck sheriff defuty an excuse to open fire.
"The Iconic Man With a Gun Is a White Man"
There is another iconic man with a gun, an icon irrefutably documented by FBI crime statistics.
Are you sure you want to get into a discussion of guns, risk, and race ?
7
Mr. Bouie you are over the heads of those white men protesting in Richmond, Virginia with this fine well-researched editorial. Over their heads way past their comprehension to understand what you are saying here. Superb editorial.
1
If you feel compelled to show up to a rally lugging a firearm you are providing ammo to those who want to disarm you. I own arms and for years swallowed the rubbish the NRA threw out. When the only response NRA offered to various mass slaughters was more guns and "thoughts and prayers", when then insisted on suppressing funding for the CDC to study the problem, when they embraced fascist politicians I realized I'd been had. There are still a lot of gun control ideas that I see as pointless, ( suppressors? Europe and New Zealand insists you use one ) but increasingly I support Red flag laws, magazine capacity limits, and universal background checks
3
I wish the Democratic Party could find a way to neutralize this issue. Why not say “we have no intention of restricting gun ownership to law abiding citizens with clear mental capability. Any republican who tells you we want to take away guns from law abiding citizens is a liar”.
If you neuter the problem, you can begin to deal with the real issue which is gun possession by mentally ill people.
1
Whenever you see black activist writers like Mr. Bouie saying things like "The reasons stretch back to our colonial origins", you know that they are trolling the distant past for the kind politically useful outrages that can no longer be found in recent history. Whatever may have happened 250 years ago in the colonial period, the civil rights era of the past 50 years is a vastly more important influence on the lives of present day Americans, both black and white.
6
Few things in this world are as fragile as the American white male ego. Anyone else moves ever so slightly ahead in life and the American white male creates a backlash that pushes the entire nation back. Case in point, Trump after Obama.
2
I won't lie. There was something inherently threatening about seeing all those white guys decked out in camo gear with massive guns slung over their shoulders.
I'm glad I wasn't there.
Of course there was no way to forget what had happened a couple of years ago in Charlottesville, Va., when rows of tiki-torch marching neo-Nazis spewing anti-Semitic and racist chants took over -- there was no guarantee the same thing wouldn't happen again.
After all, that kind of hate runs deep and there's no doubt that many of these men feel some kind of kindred spirit with Donald Trump because they believe he's on their side.
Both of them amount to the same thing.
And between the two, I don't know which is scarier.
1
Great article and very true. We all know that a black man with a gun is considered a criminal, but a white man with a gun is a "freedom fighter". That "freedom has cost the lives of over one and a half million American lives, since 1970 and millions more of injuries at an astronomical cost to taxpayers. All that, so the gun manufacturers can grow fat on American blood. As they have
2
The same people who go apoplectic when an African American pro athlete silently takes a knee during the National Anthem (which their president has proven in public he doesn't even know the words to), find it perfectly acceptable to march, armed, on a state capitol when they lose a vote.
2
Meanwhile, unarmed Black men (and children) are gunned down by police because they were "thought" to be carrying guns.
The USA makes no sense.
199
@Wiley Cousins Philando Castile did everything exactly as you are supposed to: cooperated with police, informed police that he had a licensed gun in his car, which he needed for his job as a security guard, kept his hands visible. They killed him anyway.
40
I take issue with anyone who describes this assembly as peaceful. Violence does not need to be explicit and actually carried out to exist. These men walking around in camouflage and combat gear and being armed to the teeth is an implicit threat of violence. Hence it was not a non-violent event. It was an assembly with an implicit threat of violence.
4
In this author's hypothetical, how would those other groups behavior in their armed gatherings?
Since they are hypothetical, we don't really know how they'd behave, any more than we can be sure of the very different official reaction he assumes. However, those who assume the one must also assume the other. Certainly, the assumed police reaction would be assuming behavior.
Which behavior would be assumed?
Would that assumption be correct? Fair?
The author does not even address it, but when he presumes the police reaction he's assuming only half the question.
2
On the topic I highly recommend “Negroes and the Gun” (2014)by Fordham Law professor Nicholas Johnson. It provides a detailed history of African Americans using firearms to defend themselves, especially in the Jim Crow south, and resultant efforts by whites to specifically deprive African Americans of their Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
To me the lesson is that is that it is oppressed minorities facing majoritarian discrimination who are most protected by the rights enunciated in the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the Second Amendment.
Contrary to the author’s assumption, I for one would emphatically support broader legal ownership of firearms among the African American and other minority communities.
62
@cppnyc
Sadly, possessing a gun is used to justify state violence against minorities, so it's hard to argue guns make them safer.
19
I think that there was plenty of violence tolerated for left wing Antifa protesters in Portland. The difference is that Conservatives will put up with a lot of abuse until there is a direct infringement on our constitutional rights.
7
Quite a few African American soldiers joined the US Cavalry after the Civil War. They went West and were called Buffalo Soldiers. I’m sure they carried guns. However, I take the author‘s basic point about people of color and double standards surrounding gun ownership.
3
When someone shows up at a demonstration with a visible weapon there is one message being given.
" Don't disagree with me, because if you make me mad I can hurt you."
Really, its not subtle. The whole communication is a blatant intimidation.
3
Mr. Bouie: there actually WAS a huge -- much bigger than this! -- protest of over a million women on January 21, 2020 -- exactly three years ago! and yet strangely, almost entirely forgotten now. (How short are our memories!)
It was mostly all women, and perfectly peaceful -- I knew several women who traveled from the Midwest to DC to participate! -- there was marching and chanting, fiery speeches and music. And peaceful. No military broke up all those "feisty women".
I believe a march by peace-loving, non-violent black gun owners would go the same way -- no problems.
You are making assumptions with a SHRED of evidence that white gun owners were treated differently than other groups.
3
This is one of the best op-ed pieces I have ever read. Thank you.
Brilliant essay underscoring the intimidation at work in this 'peaceful' demonstration and the underlying racism, white supremacy it both consciously and unconsciously espouses. Had 22,000 black men, armed and masked, paraded it would never have been allowed. Of that I am sure. Shame on all of us. Heartbreaking where we are and where we are headed. As Trump threatened - his people are armed! God help us.
1
I am all for non-whites as well as whites who are not “prohibited persons” owning guns if they so choose. That would end the historical backdrop of whites owning and blacks being prevented from owning. Because blacks were prevented in history does not mean that all should be prevented in the future. The article demonstrates once more that government, irrespective of king, republic, location is the most likely party to trample on the rights of the average person. That was and is the point of the 2A protests in Virginia and elsewhere.
2
A true 'originalist' reading of the Second Amendment would be that each free white man has the right to own a muzzle-loading single shot flintlock pistol or long gun.
3
Let's celebrate the freedoms and relatively low racism that we people of color face today!
things are so much better than 30 or 60 years ago. Remember the good, and the many blessings in our life
5
We can’t ignore racial issues, because of our history, but we can’t also ignore how we’ve transcended them despite our political ideologies. To portray the Virginia gun rights rally as a “racialized” or sexist led protest is to also reflect the same sexist and racialized bias.
None of the protest leaders argued that our 2nd Amendment right to own and possess guns meant that “they were the only ones who could protest in this manner.”
Qualifiers of “mosts,” “some,” and “seemingly” only contradict the bias charged here against the protest when news report photos show us that some of the armed protesters were neither white, nor male, nor “unaware” (as one armed black supporter’s sweat-shirt read, “Black Guns Matter,” and more than one armed female, historically well-read and “woke,” were speakers ).
Since the 1960s, political commentaries on racial-gender bias easily have become predictable and tiresome when they argue about topics, quite unrelated to the social biases, to make ideological arguments, such as stricter gun control.
5
It's within their rights to protest for their cause. I personally dislike the gun-carrying aspect of it and it doesn't speak highly about the protesters motives and means. Based on the one photo shown, appear to be a bunch of small minded "red-necks".
If possible, let's bring-up other "offensive" protests for a second. I personally found the 2015 Million Man March organized by renown racist Louis Farrakhan offensive and somewhat threatening - based upon the large number of persons participating.
And let's not forget about our Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams. An elected official has fundamentally told an entire population of young, Caucasian people to move to Ohio and Iowa. Racism? People should be protesting in front of his home and place of business now.
Why don't we present all sides of the story when talking about Protesters in general. Many protesters have noble intentions, all too often the means and tone and actions takes away from the message.
5
I'm not opposed to gun ownership, just stupid gun ownership. Who needs a high capacity magazine if you are a "sportsman"? Waterfowl hunters have lived with restrictions on gun capacity for years with no apparent problems. I went deer hunting once many years ago. One shot was all you got - either hit the deer and if you didn't, Bambi wasn't going to hang around so the you could fire six or seven more shots. We have. problem with illegal guns in this country that stems from over-production of weapons and a leaky registration system. Every part that goes into an airplane has to be registered with the FAA to establish its provenance. We can't so the same with guns?
1
In that Europeans established the nation (I mean the intellectual structure of the nation; threw off the British, wrote the Constitution, established the government, led the country from its founding) it can't be of much surprise that those of European heritage today are "higher" in the hierarchy, in the nation established by its ancestors. Likewise, if a group of white men challenged the status quo in Saudi Arabia, a nation built on Islamic and Arabic tradition and not Western, they would not be greatly tolerated and would, indeed, find themselves not at the top of the hierarchy. It might be kept in mind for those who find themselves so fed-up, so disillusioned, so mistreated by America and its whites, that that behemoth of a continent Africa is still waiting for its prodigal children to return home and build Wakanda, there, free from the yoke of the oppressive white shadow. Then again, one can understand if the strategy of conquest via weeping and wailing is currently more appealing. Certainly takes less effort, also the experience of victimhood, and helplessness in the face of an evil enemy whom can be blamed for all problems, is satisfying, simple, and sweet.
3
One of the posturing gunmen said that he was protecting his god given rights to carry firearms. If he was speaking of the Christian God, rather than Mars or Ares, I will speculate that Jesus never granted anyone the right to carry firearms.
This photo of thousands of white older men marching carrying semiautomatic rifles, guns and waving their flag scared me more than any photo I have seen in a long time. I could not believe this was happening in the USA on Martin Luther King Day. The idea of everyone needing a gun and having guns in schools, churches, and other public places is the total opposite of what makes a healthy, vibrant, and safe culture for everyone. Who are they going to shoot?
1
"Twenty-two thousand members of the Democratic Socialists of America, armed and threatening insurrection if the Commonwealth of Virginia didn’t establish a system for single-payer health care" Jamelle, don't pretend to be ignorant... the reason there were so many guns and armed men and women there is because the entire rally was ABOUT GUNS. Any other political rally, left or right, would not draw that kind of fire power, absent some ulterior motive. So your conclusion is probably correct. but for the wrong reason.
art
Yes, the gun rights movement is to a significant extent also a white nationalist (and perhaps even supremacist) movement. It is in particular an exclusionary movement. And they have their leader in Trump, whose many misdeeds large and small go unchecked, even today. Four more years of this and America will be totally unrecognizable... indeed, it become that even without Trump.
1
The "Iconic" man with a gun may be white, but plenty of blacks own guns as do Hispanics.
See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/reader-center/gun-rights-black-people.html
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
"And while 36% of whites report that they are gun owners, about a quarter of blacks (24%) and 15% of Hispanics say they own a gun."
Pew Research Center 2017
1
I'm sorry, but if we're going to talk about guns, at least talk about gun violence, because I don't how many of these guys shoot people. I would guess, not many. If we talk about race and gun violence, your column would be a bit different - and more interesting.
And no, I'm not trying to point out and shame people of color for gun violence. But if we're going to have a real conversation about race and guns, let's try not to distract with columns like this.
7
From the same "tree of liberty" paragraph:
"Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying."
Jefferson was certainly onto something there
In the main, these "sunshine patriots" who gathered in Virginia are libertarian and white supremacists. Most have no meaningful job responsibilities, and are in real life shirkers and slackers who live around the outer ridges of civilized societies. They are among life's complete losers, who live in a fantasy world of gun rights and with major conspiracy theories they promote as to why they are victims of the governments (federal, state, local) that seek to keep their tendencies to violence reeled in. Thank goodness we have federal troops, the FBI and polic departments who can contain them.
2
Excellent article. How can one express Freedom of Speech when being intimidated by those walking around with guns?!!
In fact, the NRA was against openly walking around with loaded weapons. Of course, this was when the militant Black Panthers of the 1960s discussed waging war against poor living conditions including housing, jobs, and education for blacks.
see https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
here's another article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
Sadly, I admit that you are right.
Sad old men with big guns and little else. I doubt they could ever become a "well organized militia".
1
Gee Bouie, so if we focus on the present then all non-criminal citizens of all color and religions have access to firearms and the ability to protect themselves from criminal attacks and pols addicted to power.
Lost in the fear of dangerous looking things is the fact this is about the US Constitution as 'law of the land'.
The betas and spineless in their hypocrisy (let's kill the fetuses of children: 2000+ a day) overlook the fact that this was a peaceful protest in the exercise of law. The only ugliness is the spew of vitriol by those who truly feel powerless except for name calling.
And...to extol there were no 'violent confrontations' because the 'other' groups stayed away is to admit if 'protesters' to this lawful assembly did attend THEY would be responsible for inciting riot. The assembly was PEACEFUL.
2
Take a moment to imagine African American citizens showing up armed, open carry, and dressed in camo for a civil rights march. And imagine the ending to that day.
2
I don't understand why the history of state oppression of minority gun rights is a basis to cast aspersions on present gun owners - who are horrified by and reject those infringements. Perhaps it is time to work to welcome minority, trans, and gay faces to your image of the gun owner in America. They have been present for decades, but ignored in corporate media (or worse - called tokens or Uncle Toms). Look for the work of Black Guns Matter and my man Maj Toure - making the hood great again - or Pink Pistols who say "armed gays don't get bashed". If you haven't seen the images of all races and sexual preferences coming together against tyranny at the Richmond Rally, you are in a bubble. Why are you erasing their history? Ask any NRA member whether, in the context of the second amendment, the Black Panther Party is a hero or a heel, you will hear universal acclaim. This piece smells of coastal elitism that deals in stereotype by an author who has never bothered to talk gun politics with an actual gun owner. This march was never about race and all were welcome. It is about tyranny.
If your idealized gun owner is angry and white, maybe it is a projection.
2
Anyone paying attention through the tumult that was the 1960 and early 1970s will remember that Conservatives were pretty interested in gun control and disarming gun owners when Blacks practiced open carry. That was particularly true where members of the Black Panthers were concerned. Now we have an Authoritarian Conservative President, in an age of White Extremist groups parading with assault weapons, warning them Liberals are trying to disarm them.
You have to be a special kind of naive to think this isn’t about White Supremacy.
3
I think Mr. Bouie is over-analyzing the situation. These people have no sense of "history" or "vision" - merely a gonadal response to a civil society with which they are increasingly at odds and to which they by choice will exclude themselves.
2nd amendment is one of the wisest and ought to be one of the most cherished aspects of US constitution.
It is under attack from liberals from all angles.
Hopefully Supreme Court which has taken up the case vs NY and will once and for all will rule against any attempt at chiselling away at this cherished right of law abiding citizens to carry arms.
I am an older white male but I too wonder about the mentality of someone who feels the need to walk down the street with a gun draped over their sholder.But why do we never talk about the facts behind who is doing the shooting and who is doing the dying.
2
I would very much like to see the response to 22,000 African Americans organizing to peacefully march through the streets carrying assault weapons. I have no doubt that Fox News coverage of would be far different from this recent event.
”The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First.”
They looked like terrorists to me.
You forgot to add Christian to the characteristics of white and male. One isn't going to see a lot of Jews or Muslims in this crowd or prevalent amongst gun owners in the US. There is something about Christianity that lends itself to threatening violence.
1
Well done article. For sure, if this was a gathering of armed black men the (white) posse would be rounded up pronto.
I don’t think the puffed up camo clowns who participated in this affair are representative of the larger population of gun owners who are simply avid hunters or target shooters. If you checked their magazine collection, you’d be more apt to find Soldier of Fortune than Field and Stream.
I disagree that "the iconic man with a gun is a white man". Please see the murder statistics for any US city with a large African American population. They reflect the fact that black communities have many more gun murders per capita than white communities. In fact gun violence among young African American males dwarfs that of any other demographic.
8
To hold this demonstration on Martin Luther King day was a deliberate attack on all he stood for. It was distain for peace and distain for Black people.
If the protesters were not racists they would have picked another day. If they wanted to seem responsible they would have left the weapons home.
1
Law enforcement must vigilantly monitor these often armed, volatile and sometimes dangerous gatherings that are primarily: MALE, PALE and with dogma STALE.
To do less is to invite disaster as in Charlottesville in August 2017.
2
Paradoxically, I fear that the only way to get to a point of rational gun control is to arm people of color to the teeth. That would be the wake-up call to the racists in Congress and across the nation. National fund raising efforts could put semi-automatic weapons into the hands of ever member of every family of color. Of course this could lead to disaster, but at this point it just might be worth the risk.
To test Mr. Bouie's ideas in this opinion piece, I would love for someone in Virginia to organize a ~22,000 person rally with at least one of the following two scenarios in mind:
1) "Twenty-two thousand members of the Democratic Socialists of America, armed and threatening insurrection if the Commonwealth of Virginia didn’t establish a system for single-payer health care. AND/OR: 2) What if this were 22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control?"
A white person can call the cops and say there is a black man with a gun in a open carry state and the police will come with guns blazing and no questions asked. They have killed in Ohio with impunity. John Crawford was killed for carrying a BB gun and Tamar Rice had a cap gun. Compare those to the firepower exhibited in Virginia.
1
Only people of a certain race can reasonably be expected to handle weapons of war on our streets.The same people who know that only them can use Nukes the correct way. The same people who thought Native Americans could only have Bow and Arrows while they had Winchesters.
1
Actually, a march of 20,000 African- Americans armed to the teeth would scare working-class white Americans (who seem fearful of everything these days) into immediately supporting a more reasonable and responsible gun ownership regime.
2
Black Americans are both pro and anti gun rights.
There were blacks at the rally for the Second Amendment in Virginia, including this man who was among the most eloquent advocates of the people's right to keep and bear arms:
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1219294854288678916
The US would be one of the safest places on earth to live---if it weren't for all the guns...
If the Governor had met these people with the Virginia National Guard armed with live rounds, they might have begun to understand the phrase "well regulated militia."
On a completely unrelated point from my other missive, I prefer not to link guns to race. Why? Because it is impossible to disengage from the number of blacks that die by gun violence. It's much higher than whites per deaths. Black men make up 52% of all gun homicide victims, despite comprising less than 7% of the US population. White men tend to do more mass shootings but black men still edge out white men for violent crimes with guns. You know who is not likely to be a shooter? Women.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/health/gun-deaths-in-men-by-state-study/index.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181204183700.htm
Anyway, this is a very complex issue and while I take no offense to the thesis presented here and I agree with it, no discussion about violence around guns and race is complete without a whole lot more data on crime, when it happens and why.....
3
It is that way because they are the only ones,in their minds, who can be responsible gun owners. Like in sports not long ago only White Men had the gray matter to be quarterbacks or coaches. It is also like that White Men today feel like they are victims they are the forgotten man.In old westerns it was the totally out numbered White Men with a gun who was looked on as a saviors of White Women and country.
1
Maybe we need to update Samuel Johnson's comment and say, "The Second Amendment is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Thanks for the history lesson.
Instead of trying to impose one's values on people who have been living in an area for hundreds of years, why not go someplace among people you are comfortable with? It seems I know what a column is going to be about when seeing who the contributor is without reading the article. The biggest continent in the world is awaiting you all - it has more than enough room - yet just as many have left to places in order to lecture how they aren't being treated fairly. Yawn.
1
If you cant parse the cultural and moral differences between the groups you mention, I’m not sure you should be writing here... homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men... the gun debate between old, white Americas and young black Americans isn’t even remotely comparable. I simply do not understand the naivety.
2
I have never seen a black man with a gun but have had guns pointed at me or someone I was with by white men (and one white woman) thirteen times. Also had a girl friend who would point her own gun at her head and have had a few random bullets whiz by me while in the great outdoors.
This “history” appears to conform with the radical writing of the Nation of Islam.
The rest of us would understand that the Right to Bear Arms was shaped by the historic policies of feudal Europe.
1
Didn't Ronald Reagan finally get serious about gun control when armed Black Panthers showed up at the Governor's mansion? This column is on target.
1
I support citizens owning muskets.
The ONLY reason for civilians to assemble with guns at a political protest is because they are a group of cowardly bullies who feel entitled to intimidate others.
The decent people of this country WILL NOT HAVE IT anymore. The time of toleration for these fake, wannabe "militiamen" is fast coming to a close. It is disgraceful that they are allowed to brandish weapons in public like this. Not good for children - nor anyone else.
I shot a gun a few times. It was interesting and fun. It's just not interesting enough to do it again. If I ever see anyone open carrying I leave. I don't want to know that person, and I don't want to be near them. Yuck. And what's with all the beards and mean faces. Yuck.
One word argument for the win: Chicago. Nice try.
5
Guns are white male identity. There is no complexity to this. Only sadness.
2
The unspoken "whites only" clause of the Second Amendment was also made crystal-clear when Philando Castile was shot and killed, after properly letting the police officer know he had a licensed firearm in his car. The silence of the NRA -- usually so enthusiastic about defending gun rights -- spoke volumes.
233
In the first grade, in 1958, I went to show my new (cap) machine gun to my 1st grade teacher during Christmas break. She had me leave it outside the convent door. I hid it in a rose bush.
The gun rights issue is about as decadent, infantile, and dishonest as any issue in our history. The founding fathers are surely spinning in their graves.
1
Don’t disagree with a thing in this column, and I’m an aging white guy who owns multiple guns.
111
We have met the enemy, and they are us .
Mr. Jimelle's willingness to show his face among the 22,000 speaks volumes. More whites need to follow his example.
Like Mr. Jamille, I have made the effort. I lived close by majority black projects in Boston when I was penniless. I played basketball (poorly) in black neighborhoods of Goldsboro, NC. I was a teacher at majority black Goldsboro High School. I coached all-black basketball teams in Goldsboro, Cambridge, MA, and Spanish Harlem. Also, I worked in downtown Newark, NJ, venturing into all-neighborhoods. And I have walked through all-black sections of Jackson, MS, Mobile, AL, and South Philly.
Unlike Mr. Jamille, I would never venture among a posse of armed blacks. And he may have fared better than me. On the basketball courts, I appeared only at the invitation of a student who defended my presence. I ultimately failed at race relations in Goldsboro due to mutual distrust. And I had to prove my mettle before my black ballplayers would pick and roll as I instructed.
We are imprisoned by racial stereotypes and it takes effort to overcome. Hopefully, Mr. Jamille learned that open carry whites aren't very dangerous to black reporters -- it's the ones with concealed weapons who can't be trusted.
Mr. Jamille ventured outside of his comfort zone as have I. It's the only way to conquer fear and bust through stereotypes. Not many blacks or whites are dangerous. But the only way to find that out is by staring stereotypes in the face.
All this article does is support Mr. Bouie's view of the world, as seen through the lens of racism and racial injustice. Mr. Bouie imagines scenarios as if they are facts and uses these "hypothetical" situations to try to prove that once again it is all about race. In this way, he turns even what he agrees was a peaceful protest into a demonstration of white power and the oppression of others.
I am no fan of the 2nd Amendment and generally endorse stronger gun laws, but I am unmoved by Mr. Bouie's "what ifs" approach to analysis here.
7
@John
I would gather that you are equally unmoved of at America's history of using gun violence to economically and politically oppress black Americans.
Thanks for sharing.
1
To the degree that it is accurate the view expressed here shows that the right to bear arms is much more important than it’s status as an explicit constitutional right or the practical issues of self-defense. It describes how is fundamental to the status of citizenship as free and equal citizens in America. On a cultural level it shows how deeply rooted it is in the cultural identity of white America.
An assault on the right to have and to carry guns is therefore not only a constitutional issue and personal safety issue but also an act of cultural genocide again white men in America and itself possibly rooted in anti-white racism.
An observation. I watched new clips of the protest in Virginia. Gun issue aside I noticed a visual similarity among the protestors. It appeared to me as a type of costume or style of appearance masquerading as a veiled uniform of sorts. As the author pointed out most were white. But also most were of middle age, many sported a much exaggerated goatee, wore camouflage, and many were overweight.
I am not a doctor, a psychologist, nor a fashion analyst. But I would be interested in hearing from a psychologist or someone who follows fashion as it relates to a look of a culture or particular group. Is the look of the protestors accidental or deliberate? To me someone having a goatee gives off the look of someone trying to look the tough guy, someone with a short fuse, someone not to mess with. The cammo I guess equates them with being quasi-military and makes them feel more tough, more superior and more secure. Being overweight is the anomaly. That one undermines the tough guy appearance by giving off the look of a coach potato. I guess that one is just a symptom of living in modern America, living an unhealthy lifestyle.
3
I would think that a better analogy regarding difference in reaction might be this: how would the public respond to a protest of 22,000 sick and disabled citizens outside the statehouse demanding single-payer healthcare? And how different would their reaction be if those 22,000 citizens were largely black?
We've seen it before: illness and disability are stigmatized, treated as if their physical issues were moral failings. It's no accident that many nativist arguments talk about newcomers bringing disease: it makes us treat them more as disease vectors, not so much as people.
Although I'd be worried about health protocols, I really do wonder what would happen if we had "illness protests" in state capitols.
Well, I missed the memo where only white men were invited to protest. I do absolutely understand the underlying impressions and societal repercussions that such a turnout may bring to mind. And it makes sense that people would be fearful if they are unfamiliar with firearms and the humble, well-trained, and thoroughly de-escalating demeanor in which I have overwhelmingly encountered in those who carry firearms. There is an insistence to label entire groups by those who turn out- a toxic trait for those with all-inclusive, sweeping opinions. This protest was about much more than the weapons themselves, but rather about the slippery slope that this kind of sweeping action entails. There are dozens of examples of localities stripping gun rights (and severely limiting those who are still legal) that show that the U.S. is not the same as these other countries people tend to turn to for data solace. Look at Chicago. U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms and have since inception- stripping of such rights is not something that should happen quietly, whether you support the right to bear arms or you do not. What's next? What I hope most for our country is that everyone steps out of their respective echo-chamber.
4
It is time that the progressives and liberal leaning population also take advantage of the second amendment. While historically there were efforts to block gun ownership among minorities if you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to exercise your right. Unless the progressives take advantage of the second amendment they will not be able to influence common sense changes that to gun ownership that includes mental health and background checks. Finally it is not healthy for 30% of the country that skews ideologically in one direction to be armed while the majority is not.
1
Thank you, Mr. Bouie, for pointing out a dichotomy most Americans should note but somehow remain blind to. When 22,000 white men, armed to the teeth, show up in Richmond to play soldier, accounts call the demonstration peaceful. But twelve-year-old Tamir Rice is slaughtered for playing with a toy gun in a park. And John Crawford is shot dead by police for carrying a BB gun in Walmart. And Philando Castile is shot by police after identifying himself as a legal gun owner. The list goes on and on — and the hypocrisy expands daily. Perhaps if the BLM movement wrapped itself in the second amendment, we might see more effective gun control measures. But sadly, such a move would likely result in more activists wrapped in body bags.
6
There's guns and then there's guns. The scoped bold action .308 used to bring down an elk in rural Oregon is different from the AR15 semiautomatic assault weapon. So is the .22 used to plink cans or kill small nuisance animals on a farm.
Those folks in Virginia were not just asserting their right to own and carry guns, they were asserting their right to intimidate the government with the threat of military-style violence.
When you argue the Constitutional right and wrong of it, make sure you argue the right thing. The elk hunter and the varmint shooter weren't at the protest because they know that the right to their guns is not under threat. The quasi-militia types with their military gear are asserting the right to intimidate the government, not simply to own a gun.
5
Since there was no bloodshed or clouds of tear gas, pundits are reduced to finding other ways to denigrate a peaceful protest turned non-event. Making fun of camo fashion statements (as many comments in other stories have done) and branding all gun owners as white men of privilege is the only way to criticize the gathering.
The fact that counter protestors stayed away had no affect on their freedom of speech. They could have held vigils in churches and auditoriums, rallied in other cities with the explicit message they were doing so in response to Richmond. There is no need to gather your own sign waving crowd on the opposite side of police barriers in order to voice your opposition.
And finally, today's laws allow any person of any color, creed or religion to own a gun. While I disagree that the new Virginia gun laws are overly restrictive, this crowd wasn't advocating for white gun owners - they were voicing their concern for anyone who wishes to legally own a firearm.
3
People seem to forget that the Second Amendment was written when the highest tech gun available was a single-shot flintlock rifle. A well-trained rifleman could fire and reload in about a minute. That's sixty shots per HOUR. How fast does a modern assault rifle get off sixty rounds? Even if not on full auto it would be less than a minute.
In much the same vein, how much training and documentation does it take to get a car and a driver's license? How much does it cost to insure? Why can you just buy a gun at a show with no ID, and then carry it around town with no training and no liability insurance?
Something here justmakes no sense.
10
I think you're partially right, Jamelle, but where you're wrong is that all 22,000 of those protesters were "white nationalists." You compare them to "black nationalists," but again, false equivalency. I think it would be more productive to compare whites and blacks, as I do believe there would have been a different response. If 22,000 mostly black people exercised their Second Amendment rights in Richmond, Va., it almost certainly would be a different story. That saddens me deeply. As a born-and-raised Detroiter, I'm reminded of the story of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black man who exercised his Second Amendment rights when a white mob wanted him to leave their "whites only" neighborhood in the 1920s, shooting and killing one after the mob began throwing stones and bricks. He and the home's occupants were jailed, but eventually (rightfully) acquitted. Long story short: Anti-gun = anti-black. Gun laws that began popping up in the early 20th century were racist. That's just a fact. To me, the "Iconic Man With a Gun" is Ossian Sweet. Let's not forget his legacy.
2
The lives of black folk changed from a rural one to an urban one over the Great Migration. The culture of gun ownership and use is a rural one, so modern black folk are culturally precluded from it. Outside of the South, the rural experience is white and immigrant-free. When this is considered, one can see there roots of this is naturally geographic and intransigent.
Being a liberal (or progressive or whatever) gun owner in what a NYT columnist would describe as rural, I wished there were more gun owners of color. It might repel some of the bigot gun owners and expand the vision of more accepting gun owners, outdoorsmen and rural people. The idea of a white supremacist being put ill-at-ease in the presence of a black/latino/asian/gay packing a Glock at a gun rally gives me limitless joy.
1
Informative article. But the real problem now centers around where is most of the gun violence taking place? Where in a city is it the most dangerous place to live? Where are there multiple shootings and killings and funerals of shot children taking place?
7
@perry hookman
Nothing that you posted, however true it may be, changes America's history of using gun violence to exterminate American Indians and oppress black Americans.
Historically, white Americans have reacted with violence when they feel threatened with black economic or political empowerment.
It happened during Reconstruction
It happened in 1921 in Tulsa, Oklahoma
It happened during the Civil Rights Movement
It happened in when Dylan Roof walked into a church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015 and killed nine black people because in his words "Black people are taking over"
Join America's only "well-regulated militia"...the U.S. Armed Forces...if you want to earn the 2nd Amendment right to possess a human-killing semi-automatic rifle. With life-time carry-over rights to possess for all military veterans. If nothing more, how big a sacrifice is it to earn that right by joining the National Guard?..six months active duty training, then five and half years of one weekend per month and two weeks each summer? While we're at it, how about instituting a surtax on all Americans who have not served that goes into a federal retirement fund for veterans to supplement Social Security? Or maybe simply provide a significant lifetime annual tax reduction/exemption for all vets? Most of us are working and middle class folks...not 1%-ers...not going to retire rich. Interestingly, the couple of guys I know who have developed a lust for guns in their dotage were Vietnam draft dodgers like Trump. Other than the hunters, and a couple of collectors, most of my former Marine infantry buds don't even own one gun/rifle of any kind. You've seen the carnage they cause. Don't want 'em in your house.
7
I found Monday's march a display of blind fear, cowardice and delusion. It was pitiful rather than fearsome.
More than 20,000 white men felt compelled to brandish weapons because they know the coming America will repudiate the thuggery and conflict they champion. And that fills them with fear.
Future America will be majority non-white and progressive. This new America will at last put an end to the gun madness that has caused so many deaths. It will instead embrace sensible gun laws and become a truly inclusive nation rather than the divided country Trump has done so much to create.
10
@Ricardo Chavira
Change is hard. For centuries white men in America have basically worked with the underlying premise; there are more of us than there are you, and we have guns.
The change to that narrative is obviously disturbing to many people in this country,
"At its founding, the United States was a white republic whose Constitution reflected settler preoccupation with racial control."
Actually the U.S. Constitution avoids race relations and defers to the states on the question of representation. Nowhere does it codify slavery. The first time "race" is mentioned is the 15th Amendment, 1870.
3
"What if this were 22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control?"
Interesting analogy, Jamelle, because "black nationalists" are a small subgroup of American blacks just as the 22K white Second Amendment fanatics represent a small segment of white Americans.
After the Stoneham-Douglas shootings in Florida, there was a protest held at the RI State Capitol in favor of stricter gun laws. Virtually the entire crowd of 500 to 1000 was white.
Does that mean only whites favor stricter gun laws?
Please get beyond the simplistic white / black lines of demarcation, Jamelle.
You must realize that, politically speaking there are many shade of white ... and black.
To resort to white and black dogmatism is missing the point and forever trending backward from MLK's dream of individuals being judging by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
5
There is clearly something morally, spiritually and/or intellectually wrong with anyone who would participate in an armed march on a state capitol under these circumstances.
3
What about the inner city? Let's be fair. Thank you..
8
The very recent shooting in downtown Seattle is witness to the bloody reality of "the right to bear arms." With the rest of the Amendments essentially ignored, the Second has assumed religious idolization. Whatever the cause of the Seattle shooting, along with the thousands of others past and to come, those worshipping the Second Amendment and the brotherhood it has established are responsible for blood that has washed America all too red forever.
1
People who live outside America have the impression that too many Americans actually enjoy violence and killing. People who refer to what the Founding Fathers wrote in the Bill of Rights seem to forget that the real founders of the American experiment were the New England Puritans, who wanted to create “a model of Christian charity” for the rest of humanity. The sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill, is older than the Second Amendment.
4
29% of Americans own a gun.
As with many things in America gun ownership differs with race (Whites/35%, Blacks/20%, Latinos/12%). Location (Metro/25%, Non Metro /41%) and political affiliation (Dem/19%, Rep/44%, Ind/31%) are also significant.
- American Public Media survey, August 2019
But as divided as this country is, even a majority of Republicans, even a majority of gun owners, support at least some gun control laws. For example, "Red Flag" laws are popular across all groups.
We have a gun problem in this country. We also have a gun lobby problem where a relatively small number of fanatics sway cowardly and/or easily bought politicians to ignore the will of the majority.
Sometimes it feels like we are getting close to the tippingpoint where money and shouting won't keep gun laws off the books forever. And sometimes, especially when one looks at the divisive disaster in the Oval Office and the political hacks being seated on the Federal courts, it seems like we will never get there.
But there is hope: Perhaps what it will take to stop bad men with guns (and a very bad President and the "we will not be replaced" wing of his supporters) is a consistently higher voter turnout (and political donations) of good people who want their voices heard, their votes counted, and the intimidation by an angry minority of Americans to stop.
4
Every time I see an American movie, I am overwhelmed by the blatant marketing of gun use shown there. If Hollywood were to replace gunshots in its movies with cigarettes, everybody would understand that big tabacco is trying to manipulate the audience.
3
@Andreas Right. In fact, they used to do just that all the time.
1
Well yes, 2nd Amendment rights are all well and good, except when exercised by African Americans, who may end up dead if they do so. Remember, to name a few, Tamir Rice (12 year old boy playing with friend's toy gun in Cleveland Park, immediately shot dead upon policeman's arrival on scene); John Crawford (shot dead by police inside Walmart while handling a bb gun on sale at the store); and Philando Castile (shot dead by police officer during traffic stop after advising officer he lawfully had a registered handgun in the car). If a black gun enthusiast tries to exercise his open carry rights by walking down a public street with a long gun strapped across his back, I suspect it will end very badly.
7
Indeed so. And it was no accident that this particular event was staged on the day on which we, as a nation, celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. I think it was disgusting to allow this event to take place on this particular day. And let's not forget that the person who organized this event was the stooge who fell for Sasha Baron Cohen's "Kinder Guardians" ploy, and enthusiastically endorsed the notion that 3 year-olds should be armed. Watch that clip on Youtube and make up your own minds.
4
I'm an American expat living in Europe. I understand the 2nd Amendment as well as the next person. It's a "right" that has been distorted into a fetish. It scratches a primal itch that its worshipers slavishly believe gives them power. They fantasize about their freedom and their ability to overthrow an oppressive government if necessary. Any carnage or other byproducts of their obsession are merely "the price we pay for freedom." But how free are you in the States these days?
There are rights and freedoms and there are rights and freedoms. There's nothing more reassuring to me than knowing people can congregate in large and small public venues here in Europe and enjoy their lives without the constant presence of guns. There isn't a day that goes by in the States where there isn't a murder or shooting (many classified as mass shootings). Fundamentally, those who fetishize guns don't want to hear the message that their sense of security is an illusion. They also don't want to hear that pretending to be soldiers under the guise of being "law abiding citizens" is flaccid nonsense.
Personally, I have no problem with people owing guns. Lot's of my family members and colleagues here in Italy own them for sporting purposes. None owns or wants to own an AR15 or other firearm. In the end, I will go to the next festival knowing no one is going to be a victim of someone else's gun fetish.
4
I lean to the Left, but this is a specious argument: "What if these were left-wing protesters instead? Twenty-two thousand members of the Democratic Socialists of America, armed and threatening insurrection if the Commonwealth of Virginia didn’t establish a system for single-payer health care." The group in Virginia was gathering to (what they would consider) protect their 2nd Amendment right. Hence, they carried arms. C'mon, Jamelle, you're better than this.
4
Come on Patrick? You don’t understand irony? A previous commenter said it well, its gone from right to a fetish. Police would look very differently on left-wing or poc holding an armed demonstration like this.
This is all in keeping with the Second Amendments original intent, which was to give Southern slave owners the ability to keep and bear arms in order to put down slave rebellions. White gun ownership has historically been framed as the need to protecting the home (plantation) front, whereas, Black gun ownership is only about criminality.
3
Thank you for an analysis that presented a context new to me.
1
Their guns do nothing more than mask fear and lack of courage.
4
They believe that "real men" have guns. The truth is, they can't feel like a real man without one.
5
My uncle has a .357 Magnum he had purchased from a man who happened to be a gifted hunter. Every Thanksgiving he brought it out and pretended to shoot the turkey. As a little boy I was both fascinated and terrified - in fact, I had to get some therapy as a result. I also stopped eating meatI had to invent excuses as my parents believed that vegetarians were gay or radicals. As I grew older, however, I started to became fascinated by guns of all kinds. I regret I attended a demonstration like this out of loneliness. I realized how stupid this was when all the men at the rally looked like my uncle. I have not stopped crying. Political and nightmarish.
6
I've often wondered how these communities would react if an equal number of black men with guns were to march in the streets.
It certainly would not be pretty.
Great column.
7
Couldn't agree more.
My thoughts turned to the peaceful 1960's protests by armed Black Panthers, prompting Gov. Reagan to re-evaluate gun rights.
But at least I could crack a smile when recalling Dave Chappelle's skit about gun control where he calls, as only Dave can do, for all black men to get out there and register.
Not to vote, but to own and carry, no doubt prompting change.
3
Two Australians, one of them dual American citizen, one dual German. Yesterday, we read about the contentious law stipulating a restriction to purchase no more than one gun per month. One gun per month. We had a good laugh, with one eye crying. If more than half of the American population can't see the absurdity of this, we just have to give up.
5
Last fall on a trip to Italy, I met a former American policeman.
As we met at the breakfast table the first thing he tells me is that he's sitting to his back to the wall facing and the entrance to the dining room because some terrorist could walk in the room and start shooting.
As we talked about gun controls (he was opposed) I came to the conclusion this fellow actually LIKES the tension, the hype around guns. It gives him the opportunity of playing "cowboy and Indians", and an excuse to carry a weapon and be a "dude".
I'm convinced this is what most second amendment activists want and do... It's an escape from their dull lives. However, when they'll find themselves or their closed ones into real life threatening situations where people are maimed and killed they won't find their charade as funny.
4
@TrueNorth Somebody should do a study of that "sitting facing the door" business. I'm a totally peaceable, non-gun-owning guy, and yet when I take a seat in a room I'm conscious of sight-lines. If I sit with my back to the door, the thought will at least flicker through my mind that it's going to be OK, that I don't have to know who's coming in. Then I'll forget all about it, but the thought was there. Strange, when you think about it.
There are some non-white groups that routinely carry rifles to political events - the Taliban and Boko Haram to name only two - but obviously they're not in America.
I'm a liberal. I own guns. We have a civilian arms race in America. We feel threatened by the police because the police are armed with military grade weaponry, and as a result civilians arm themselves with military grade weaponry for protection from criminals and police alike. It's tough to be the first person to disarm, and one point nobody ever seems to make is that even if national gun safety laws are passed right now, America's surplus of military spec weaponry will still be around for decades and decades.
Another point nobody makes: If some of the rhetoric on the left is accurate, and Trump and his factions represent a rising white-supremacist fascism, then disarming now would be lunacy for anyone on the left who owns guns for protection. If I am going to be threatened by right wing militias because of how I vote, or because I attend Pride rallies every year, or because I want Trump impeached and removed, then there's no way I'm going to unilaterally disarm.
I'll tell you the truth. I wish I could live in a world where none of use will ever be threatened by someone with a gun. That will never be our world. If marching militias of white men begin terrorizing liberals, progressives, LGBTQ, people of color, or anyone else, the anti-gun left will be grateful when someone fires back.
3
@PJ Unfortunately, all the examples are depressing: street-fighting leftists weren't able to suppress the Nazis, armed white supremacists won in the American South once the Army was pulled out... in general it has taken centralized government military forces to defend freedom. Armed civilians can certainly cause a lot of trouble. But I'm afraid that your vision of armed leftist civilians facing down armed rightist civilians doesn't end well at all. That's the point when it's time to literally "move to Canada" rather than just talk about it.
1
I hear liberals who say they don't mind if guns are allowed in "rural" areas but should not be in the "urban" areas. It's built into the 'American' psyche. This can also be extended out to the global empire. These guys "should just join the military" because they belong somewhere out there defending the American empire instead of here on the streets of America where they seem out of place (even though they look like our militarized law enforcement.) But liberals don't see them as a real threat. They must be reasoned with and beg them to disarm. If they felt truly threatened, they would be calling for their side to arm up as well.
"What if this were 22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control? Would the police have had the same light touch, watching and listening but allowing events to unfold? Or would they have gone into overdrive with riot gear and armored vehicles, aggressive tactics and a presumption of criminality?"
Yes - wow - it certainly would be a different reaction not only from law enforcement, but likely from the guys who were central to this rally. I do not find it hard to imagine these gun owners, if a few thousand blacks decided to rally with their guns, forming up some kind of "safety militia" and deciding that they needed to patrol the perimeter of the event to "protect" the public...
Thanks for a thought provoking essay.
1
Thank you, Jamelle Bouie, for the racist history of American gun bans and their basis in the inequality of power.
While the Richmond protesters threatened rebellion, the rich white slave-owner George Washington actually used gun violence to kill government members and overthrow it.
Those opposing racism might ask whether we should accept similar actions by black, brown or other minorities when the rights to which they are entitled are violated.
1
The article is spot on. What we must realize is that white men will fight for the right to stay dominant and defend themselves from any perceived threat; and the second amendment gives them the right to do so. Any discussion otherwise fails to recognize the poorly concealed bullying and threats of violence that this demonstration displayed. Every time I see someone with an open carry I see a bully looking for a fight.
1
If you are an American and you want to protect this country, it means you protect its laws -- instead of threatening the people who make them. You honor the people making them. If you disagree with them, you use an American principle of electing someone else. That is a good way to discover what you really are.
2
One of Jamelle Bouie's best article, and there are a legion of bests.
Underscored that Blacks from colonial times were targeted particularly as not equal, inferior to whites.
This is exposed historically in Jordan White's masterful WHITE OVER BLACK.
Blacks were targeted as early as 1660 when one black indentured servant, John Punch, was indentured for life after an escape. His two fellow white escapees simply received added years.
After Bacon's Rebellion, black were targeted in that only blacks would harvest tobacco, a messy process.
In 1691 blacks were forbidden to marry whites; again targeting one group exclusive. Never in history of world had this happened and remained in effect until 1967 when finally the USSC struck down miscegenation in Loving v. Virginia.
And, as Bouie points out, laws were passed targeting blacks exclusively, slave or "free", from possessing guns, the ultimate American symbol of power.
1
“The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First.”
I am so distraught by this sentence.
3
Cogent, enlightening piece. I'm being intentionally ironic, but organizing a million man march of armed black men might be a compelling way to enact some form of gun control. Thanks.
1
The problem isn't how the gun culture originated; it's what to do about it now. Should we blame white women of yore who failed to stop their "menfolk" from taking up arms for contributing to the problem? Historically, the culture as a whole embraced the use of guns. The culture as a whole must solve the problem of gun violence today. Public gun ranges advertise Ladies Nights routinely. What does that say about the misguided appeal of guns being confined to male DNA? It's time to stop pointing fingers and start finding solutions.
This article isn't about race and guns, it's about power and money disguised as concern about guns. Someone who is part of the elite is disturbed that 20 thousand people peaceably demonstrate in support of a right that is about to be taken away.
Attempting to split Americans via race is a trick as old as the oligarchy.
The narrative discussed here is the narrative of white settler colonialism. White settler colonialism is not a history of immigrants that we been erroneously taught is the hallmark of America's melting pot. White settler colonialism is the history of Native American genocide, the history of socio-economic development on the backs of slavery, the history of white male aristocrats creating a class of low whites used to control itinerant slaves, and the history of rugged individualism that has distorted the first amendment. When we can, as a nation, reach a consensus on this disgusting history we might begin to progress morally. Until then all of the gun laws agreed upon will be useless.
1
Some 22,000 armed thugs came to Richmond to show support for the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of state national guards and police organizations to keep and bear arms.
Wanna bet few of them have read or parsed the single-sentence, two-phrase Amendment they clamor to support? Reckon they know the meaning of a well-organized militia?
1
The event was a deemed a “success” for Virginia as news outlets simply reported violence did not break out. Yet, the images of armed white militant groups in Richmond flouting their deadly potency with no counter narrative will become a powerful recruitment tool for those who wish to divide our nation and continue dismantling our democracy.
1
The author wonders what would happen if 22.000 members of the Democratic Socialist of America , demonstrating in favor of Universal Health Care , would show up armed to their teeth. The comparison is incongruous : they would show up brandishing syringes and would not carry banners saying " come and get it".
As for the second comparison ( 22,000 black nationalists equally armed) : the reaction of the police would not be any different than if they were white nationalists. The key word is " nationalist" not the color .
Bouie is right of course, but we also must acknowledge the utter absurdity of grown men playing soldier like eight-year old boys. These men are dangerous. They are also incredibly regressed.
3
so the gov't gave a welfare check to those who did not have a gun to buy a gun. ok i'm all for that. give me my ar-15. yeah right this will never happen but we spend most of our budget on defense.
What I believe is being missed in all this media hoopla over the Virginia gun protests is that these guys are at best a rag-tag bunch of losers and wannabes.
As I parse the data according to the NYT news story, a grand total of about 22,000 protestors showed up. That's a mediocre crowd at a AAA-level baseball game for crying out loud.
This was hardly a display of mass protest. Simply put, it was pitiful.
While I don't doubt that these people have a somewhat greater following than was represented by the loonies who actually showed up -- I suspect that a lot more of their "sympathizers" just took saw the day as a nice Monday holiday.
Albeit one honoring Dr. Martin Luther King who, by the way, back in 1963 drew a heck of a lot more people to the Mall in DC in support of the very opposite of what these Richmond clowns portray.
2
I realize that I am writing this in the Times and it probably won’t register with big city folk. Mature adults can own guns without threatening their neighbors. As a responsible gun owner who does not belong to or support the NRA (leave that to the Russians), I’d have loved to see 22,000 African Americans in that demonstration; not to protest the potential laws, but to say, “Hey, we have the same rights.” Since I, as a white middle aged male, have the right to own whatever weapon I can buy, so do they, and they should exercise it.
Reality: Estimates of 300 million guns in the US. The government will never be able to take them away, law or no law. How many cops are you going to employ to try a house to house knowing that the owner may violently object to seizure? Millions? We’ll simply see a new black market for weapons from offshore manufacturers. Witness the War on Drugs...still plenty of drugs around.
Fetishists who have an unhealthy relationship to weaponry, well, we’ve all known those guys, and they’re the reason for the Red Flag laws.
2
What would Shakespeare make of all this? Or Norman Rockwell? Or Norman Vincent Peale? Or any other great thinker now at rest in Valhalla?
We all know what the Virginia gun rally was about - white nationalism. And these gun "rights" activists are nothing more than white nationalists wrapping themselves in our flag.
But what do these gun "rights" people want? They already have an unfettered right to own guns in this country. They have a very sympathetic Supreme Court that has refused to consider sensible gun restrictions - even after the bloodbath at Sandy Hook.
So what do they really want? That's easy. They want to threaten those of us who are not white, but are nonetheless citizens of this country. They want us to fear them. They want us to know our place. They want us to understand that they may attack us with impunity - and that now they have a Supreme Court and a "president" who will support them without hesitation.
These Trump supporters are, like Trump, masters of projection. They themselves are the ones committing hate crimes, and yet they claim they are the "victims". They revel in their imagined victimhood. They believe that as white Christians, they are somehow "persecuted", that their "rights" are being violated. And so they brandish their assault rifles so that those of us who are brown skinned Americans will continue to fear them. This is all they want.
But understand this. Those of us who are people of color in this country know who the real victims are. And it isn't Trump voters. And there will come a day when they will no longer be able to threaten us.
2
playing the race card does not take away the fact that there were african americans at the rally. or that the second amendment is color blind. intimidation is a weird way of explaining what people were actually doing. i mean, does one call exercising the right to practice religion, assembly or free speech, intimidation? exercising is the only way to keep strong. the people in the square were ordered not to bring weapons in. so they didn't. so saying that the second amendment limited the first is not true.
4
Remember the Bundy family, so enraged by having to pay grazing fees that they threatened to shoot tax collectors? There they were, on their big bellies, law enforcement through their rifle sights.
I wondered how that would go if they were black, and just didn't want to pay gummint taxes. That family went on to occupy federal property in Oregon, mad that the ranchers had to share the public lands with birds and, you know, the public.
4
Very insightful and right on point. As a white women these are quite disturbing times too. I don't feel safe with so many people who are so paranoid or love their guns so much that won't go to Walmart without them. Might does not make right.
1
It's a safe bet not one of these 22,000 freaks, who had no problem marching, armed, on a state capitol, because they were outvoted by the majority, rallied after atrocities in Pittsburgh, Charleston, Las Vegas, Poway, Newtown, Sutherland Springs, Virginia Beach or El Paso, to honor any of the thousands of Americans who lost their lives to the insane ideology these right-wing marauders espouse.
That in itself says all that needs to be said about their real values.
2
Excellent article but I find myself staring at the tell all photo.
The men, no doubt self described patriots, are wearing dirty mom jeans and dirty coats.
The American flag as a head/neck scarf.
The frayed tea party flags look worn out. Resurrected for these occasions.
The paraphernalia looks expensive.
These guys even look alike.
So is it back to work on Tuesday?
The economy is so on fire these folks must have decent jobs that allow them to indulge in such firepower.
Bet their hats are stinky too. And speaking of hats, I did not catch a glimpse of red. No maga representation?
1
When I was a kid in the 1960's my friends and I were fascinated with guns. We read "Guns and Ammo" magazine. We fantasized about loading our own bullets and fighting off invading Russians with home made bombs.
A lot of our fathers served in WW2 (mine in the Battle of the Bulge) and did not own guns or go hunting. They went to work and mowed the lawn and dove under the bed if a car crash on the road outside occurred in the middle of the night.
Then came Vietnam and body bags. and assassination's.
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. And so did I and my friends.
As a white man seeing all those angry white faces carrying heavy weapons and dressing up in military outfits makes me sick to my stomach. They need to give up their childish ways.
3
I thought by the picture it was a MENSA convention. Good thing I read the article. My question remains - where does it say "guns" anywhere in the constitution? I have yet to find that. But I always find "well regulated". But why stop at guns? It says "arms" so a scud missile or a sherman tank should be fine, no? I mean it is my right, no?
4
Dear Mr. Bouie - You probably never considered a very different alternative. Most white people in this country are not descended from slave owners. In fact, their roots go through the non-slave north. Many post date slavery entirely, by decades.
But their roots share something in common - oppression and dispossession where they came from. Life in Europe was not a fairy tale of princesses, talking pets and fairy godmothers. It was frequently bloody and violent. European history is savage. Nationalities crushed by stronger neighbors and subsumed into empires at the end of a sword or bayonet.
We, the white people of the USA, are frequently the descendants of those who were weak. Our roots came here to get away from all that. And we are determined to never be under the boot of another again.
Our later descendants served in WWI and WWII. Korea and Vietnam. We’ve seen what totalitarians and nationalist madmen will do. Communists and socialists, too. You know. Your friends.
That’s why we have Don’t Tread On Me flags and support gun rights. Because we know the only thing between us and those totalitarians are the guns in private hands.
2
I no longer recognize the country I live in. We are being terrorized by the minority republican party - a coalition of hatred that represents the worst among us. This cannot continue.
2
this explains a lot of what I have suspected about gun ownership by whites.
Even now, whites own guns to "defend" themselves against blacks.
What do whites think guns will do against climate change? Can you shoot a melting glacier?
We are still in Reconstruction and we have never gotten over slavery.
1
Well, except there are plenty of Black gun owners, it’s a little more complicated than that . . .
4
I am a white man over 50. I own a few rifles. I agree with everything Jamelle Bouie says in this article, because what he says is obviously true. It isn't fair; it isn't right; but it's true.
My rifles are tools that I rarely use. They are not for intimidation but for hunting. I'd be happy if all the guns were banned, frankly. They cause way more harm than good. But the deer population would explode. What a mess.
2
You are absolutely correct. In addition, women have only had the right to vote for 100 years. Discrimination against women, people of color and immigrants (legal or not) was the backbone of this nation for almost 200 years. I have no doubt what MAGA means. The election of President Obama unleashed this putrid form of nostalgia once again.
1
The majority of white men who die from gun violence die at their own hands. They die from suicide. These deaths are greater per thousand people in states with lax gun laws. So, in essence, white men are marching in the street for the freedom to take their own lives with guns.
1
The United States has lost it's mind and can prove it.
2
22,000 UNarmed leftists calling for governmental overthrow
would not have been allowed anywhere near the VA capitol.
They would have been given a fenced, "free speech zone" across town. Preferably in a abandoned factory area.
If they did not stay exactly within the fenced zone, or stayed there beyond the exact time on the protest permit, they would have been forcibly removed, perhaps with "nonlethal" methods like pepper spray.
This is not conjecture. It is how Ocuppy Wall Street protesters were treated.
2
Mr. Bouie, your thesis is that Virginia tolerated these armed protestors because of a racist right to bear arms history. That's not true on its face.
State officials allowed the protest to go ahead--with some restrictions--because open carry is the current law in Virginia. There's no basis for you to assume that a protest by 20,000+ similarly armed black men would have been shut down or violently suppressed.
Having said that, these men were motivated by white supremacy and white privilege. The proposed legislation that they oppose strikes at the heart of their racist identity. And that's all to the good.
1
Ostentatious open carry, a symbol-rich but very sad way for some gun fanciers to bond with like-minded others. It's also the cri de coeur of a group whose perceived "birthright" is being eroded by corporate interests (something most of us have in common) but have been led to believe their dwindling prestige, privilege and opportunity is somehow caused by unions, "femi-nazis" and minorities - all encouraged by the government. I would love to ask them why they need semi-automatic weapons at Starbucks. And if there any studies on whether a concealed weapon is less effective than an open carry in the course of daily life?
How do threats to the group Mr. Bouie names compare to those of women for whom the danger of attack in ordinary places is very real, not to mention that more women are likely to be killed in mass shootings than men.
Before I bought a gun in the late '80s, I signed up for a women's handgun safety course which was 15 hours of handling, regulations, myth-busting, safe practices, disassembling, etc. On the range one evening the instructor commented that he much preferred teaching women to shoot than men. We were surprised because this instructor taught a lot of firearms classes including tactical, low-light and combat classes. He said it's because women are teachable. They come in knowing they're beginners, and unlike a lot of men, he said, women don't think they're born knowing how to shoot.
1
"There were no counterprotests or rival demonstrations The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First."
The choice of progessives to ignore this rally was correct, and would have been far preferable to the counterprotests in Charlottesville.
About a hundred white supremicists decended on Charlottesville for their protest. If the progressives had merely ignored them, the protest would have slipped into oblivion. It was the conflict that made their protest front page news.
The size of the recent protest was probably greatly enhanced the the notoriety achieved in Charlottesville.
Nothing is gained or learned from two mobs shouting at each other.
1
today race does not shape the right to bear arms. there are no restrictions for gun ownership based on race; you dont even have to be a citizen of the US.
i have seen other photos of the rally and there were african americans in attendance, visibly armed.
mr bouie often tries to insert the issue of racial bias into situations that have nothing to do with racial bias. while that may help the nytimes sell papers among the liberal cognoscenti, it weakens the discussion when real bias occurs.
1
Mostly white and mostly with facial hair.
Action heroes in their own, private fantasy adventure movies, yet feeling ever-so threatened.
Overgrown children with beards and deadly toys.
1
Government's merged with industry to bring us dystopia. I'll keep my guns, thank you.
Spot on, but let’s add these were not just white guys with guns. They were white guys with assault weapons, bulletproof vests, helmets, and camo. They weren’t representing peace loving rural Americans who just want to own a deer rifle and a handgun to protect their homes and families. These guys were telling us they mean business, and we all know what that means. There is no 2nd Amendment right to intimidation.
2
I’ll try one more time—
I find it ridiculous that grown men need guns—weapons of war at home.
I don’t know what you are afraid of. You should realize that no one, positively no one is out to get you.
The politicians that you hold so dear care only for your vote so they can continue picking your pocket and continue getting richer while you go nowhere.
Thanks to the Republicans we Northerners pay more in federal taxes and get less back than southern states. We subsidize your state and local taxes with our federal tax dollars and I’m tired of it.
Know what that’s called? Socialism.
Time to man-up and pay your fair share.
That’s the American Capitalist thing to do.
3
Can someone explain why they dress up like the troops? I don't get it. Are they paramilitaries? Are they just grown men playing make believe?
2
I haven’t read the opinion yet; I have just looked at the photo. That is scary enough. I would not like to meet any of these men on a street at night walking home. A hard-working immigrant or one who wants to escape from this very violence of weapons for all, I welcome!! He/she would help me on the street or wherever. These guys? Now I‘ll read the opinion.
1
One point that few if any supporters of gun rights in these comments mention: Why, in addition to carrying large, menancing looking guns, were so many protestors dressed in riot control gear (at least those featured on TV, which I admit probably is skewed)?
Lets say I concede that you need your guns for self protection. Then what's with all the rest of the get up?
Because it looks to me like you are preparing for war. Excuse me for worrying about "against who?"
2
There is nothing ironic about this. They are paranoid about government tyranny. How could they not be given how the 20th Century played out.
One thing is for sure, the Police aren't going to do anything with a group like this, they were most likely in the crowd. There's a rule; you don't arrest your own.
1
Demonstration with guns in hand is violent and intimidating, not “peaceful” in any sense.
It’s mind-boggling that this could even happen in the United States. 22,000 wannabe Rambos marching around with weapons in public? It shows just how insane, extreme and divorced from reality this country’s right wing has become.
If ever there was a perfect argument for more gun control, this event was it.
1
I live in Germany; it is still possible to own a gun, although most people don’t—It didn’t use to be that way. Back before America was settled by Europeans, the average European commoner was not even allowed to own a firearm or even hunt for game like deer or elk; that was reserved for nobility!
What were Africans doing back then? Well, they basically did not have a gun culture, which means that when the tribal men hunted, they were way closer to the dangerous game they were hunting. Talk about brave! Would you come face to face with a lion with limited weapons? Probably not.
Both societies had similar homemaking challenges: due to the lack of machines, humans had to do most things manually from farming, to water gathering and wood chopping. Of course both Europe and Africa had structures wherein most people were simply used as cheap labor, often to the point of being an indentured servant or even a slave.
Add on top of this the religious component. Right or wrong, religion didn’t have a long history of being flexible. Christians fought Christians, Christians fought Muslims, Christians and Muslims dominated Jews. Rare, but existent, were the great kings of the pre-Jesus past showing religious tolerance.
There’s a German word: Pöbel (poebel) which means the rift raft part of the population, the uneducated commoners, the worker bees of society, a.k.a. the people. “We the people [dregs]...” Not so nice, huh.
Guns don’t stand in the way of progress, they just slow it down.
1
Thank you for this, M. Bouie, this was a great read! What a tough legacy...
I have a profound distaste for arms of any kind, and truly believe that the minute you pull out a gun, you have stopped communicating.
Having said that, and in the light of the continuous stream of mass shootings, I believe gun deaths are now more a matter of public health. And as such, should be treated just like cars: public goods that are potentially lethal.
And just like cars, they should be strictly regulated: each piece has a number, it is also registered, its owner must show s/he knows how to use it, operation permits must be had and any sale, transfer or disposal must be notified to relevant authorities.
Another reader commented about "Why do you need a gun to begin with?" I commend that wisdom, and think America should bring that discussion to the fore. Without delay!
1
Jifeng Mu, Ph.D., of the UW Foster School of Business, quantitatively proved that both business and human discourse rely on social networking. In this instance, FB, etc. are the least of it. It's what people do. If you're angry, feel like your birthright is being eroded by strangers and people whose roles are traditionally subservient, there's a band of brothers looking to embrace you. All you need is enthusiasm and an interest in firearms, even if all you own is an AirSoft Marauder. If you're undecided politically and would like to sample a range of white supremacist and neo-fascist groups, you'll find recruiters at these events. Finally, if you've got an old .45 service pistol to unload, it's an informal swap meet for weapons without the background check - just like any other community forum or marketplace.
Or how gun identity regresses to the mindsets of the 1500s' conquistadors. No coincidence that the president of this gunned-up time takes to twitter with his terrible swift broadsword.
'Guns, Germs, and Steel' (Larry Diamond).
We dispossess ourselves by guns of the land we took by guns. Natives' revenge.
I find the audacity of this tribe of armed, angry while men to be alarming. These masked, heavily armed, emotionally charged, aggressive men knew exactly what they were doing by staging their practice invasion in Richmond. They knew that they represent a threat to women, children, and all people of brown skin. They like the power to cause fear, it's validating to them.
Look at their garb. It's deliberately rural and authoritarian, a uniform of white male grievance, and entirely out of place in a sophisticated historic city. The display was surely a drill for future exercises in social disruption and intimidation. I wonder what DC, Boston, NYC, Chicago, LA, and Memphis will do when a similar "rally" comes to town?
I'm reminded of William Faulkner's short story,"Barn Burning"; these men are Abner Snopes in the flesh.
2
I'm for gun control, but no one should racialize the issue.
The image of carnage is not just the maybe misguided image of a white man holding a gun or of the horrible mass killings. When it coms to life and death, the black men in Chicago and Baltimore and hoods across the nation are killing each other and bystanders in the thousands each year----adding up to mass killings.
No doubt, the issue are complex and many in number.
An effort to point a racial finger will only inflame the extremes of political spectrum. Enough!
1
Jamelle: If you go up to Blue Mountain you'll see a lot of armed brothers practicing. Guns, like everything else in the country hundreds of years ago were apportioned with racial prejudice. Not news. Guns and butter, Jamelle, were affected by racism. But it's 2020. And if you think that today I want the only people effectively armed to be cops who may not even have been born here or criminals who apparently have been invited to thrive, you're clearly confused.
We will be armed. My daughter, my wife, my family, all ready and in Westchester and Fairfield. And I would add that we don't have to lock our doors in my neighborhood. Try that in the five boroughs where only cops, ex cops and friends of the mayor or the cops get to protect their property and lives.
1
If you take guns away from people who support the right to bear arms, those are law abiding CITIZENS, who do you think is going to be left bearing arms? Do you honestly think that people who are not supposed to have a firearm already are going to just give them up? It's already illegal what is going to change? O yeah, I can't defend myself, my family, or my property! Government needs to focus on real problems, S.S. ? Why is it hard to get unless you just got off the boat and 30 days here??? FOCUS on the stuff they are trying to get your attention away from, I can give all kinds of ex. but until you open your eyes you will only see people with Tommy guns tearing up the country side.
1
'Cause the world needs more armed, bearded men in over-the-counter military attire protecting a right that other men with guns are sabotaging on what seems like a daily basis.
I smell a circle.
1
Ostentatious open carry seems a symbol-rich but very sad way for certain gun fanciers to bond with like-minded others. It's also the cri de coeur of a group whose perceived "birthright" is being eroded by corporate interests (which most of us have in common) but who've been led to believe their dwindling prestige, privilege and opportunity is somehow caused by unions, "femi-nazis" and minorities - and of course by the permissive govermnent that allows inferiors to get away with this takeover. I would love to ask them why they need semi-automatic weapons at Starbucks. And are there any statistics on whether a concealed weapon is less effective than an open carry weapon in the course of daily life? How do threats to the men Mr. Boule names compare to those of women for whom the danger of attack when out alone after dark is very real, as well as the fact that more women are likely to be killed than men in mass shootings? Before I bought a gun in the 80s I signed up for a women's handgun safety course which was 15 hours of handling, regulations, myth-busting, safe practices, disassembling. On the range one evening the instructor commented how much easier it is to teach handgun safety to women. We were surprised because this instructor taught a lot of butch firearms classes including tactical, low-light and combat classes. He said it's because women come in knowing they're beginners, and unlike many men, women don't think they're born knowing how handle a gun.
In his famous speech, Jefferson poses the question "What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" before responding with his famous line "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". So, if one were able to provide an answer to his first question, then his famous response would look somewhat foolish. Sweden.
Mr. Bouie, do you own a gun? Do you think a woman afraid of an angry husband or boyfriend should be denied the right to own a gun? Do you really think the "iconic man with a gun" is White or Black?
The mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.
4
Another great piece James. If readers are not on his mailing list you're missing out. I, too, wondered where all the armored personnel carriers and flack jacketed cordons of militarized police, that seem to spring up whenever people of color protest, were. I also remember when members of the Black Panthers brought their perfectly legal guns to the state capital in Sacramento, CA. I don't believe it took more than a day for gun control legislation to pass. It's painfully obvious that, historically as you point out, and presently, gun rights are synonymous with white male privilege.
2
The Jefferson doctrine of refreshing the tree of liberty with blood is a half-truth. The only blood being spilled is the average citizen-patriot, while the blood of the tyrants and their minions who profit from the carnage remains untouched.
92
@GA Good point. That was probably one of Jefferson's most demagogic, least intelligent quotes. No tyrants shed any blood in the American Revolution, and the deaths of the French and Russian royalty weren't great steps forward in their respective revolutions. But if Jefferson had said, the tree of liberty must be fertilized and mulched by the minutes of endless committee meetings, that wouldn't have sounded as gung-ho...
15
One of the most thoughtful and eloquent pieces I ever read. Thank you for speaking real truth to power.
2
If you need to persuade by a show of weapons, your ideas can't be all that good.
219
@Maria
I agree with you, but this might be the one logical exception to that rule, being that the idea they defend IS that a show of weapons is a perfectly good thing that should be allowed.
8
@Maria Sounds like you looked at the photo and stopped there. You should read what he has to say.
All I know is that more guns in the hands of more angry males, no matter their race, makes for more dead people. Tonight, outside both a coffee house and a McDonalds in Seattle, close to the tourist area of Pike Place, a gunman, or more than one, opened fire after an argument injuring 7 or more, including a 9 year old boy, and killing a 40 yr. old woman. We don't know the race of the victims or the perpetrators. Does it matter? No it doesn't, as dead is dead and it only means more people must go to jail, costing the taxpayers money that should be used for building up humanity, all of it.
199
I think you make a great point and a victim is a victim regardless of race.
I would contest your rhetorical question about whether race matters. It does, just not in the want this author wants it to. Extremely disproportionately, the perpetrators of homicide are black males.
Unfortunately, commentators and journalists are reluctant to discuss this.
11
@MaryKayKlassen
I live in Seattle. I can make an educated guess on the perps. 99% chance I'll be right. Would be nice if Mr. Bouie showed the same outrage over the Jersey City massacre and Monsey massacre as he did over misguided but this apparently non-violence gathering.
11
Thank you Mr. Bouie for your nice recitation of history in which you made it clear that gun control had its origins in the desire of one group to keep another subjugated.
Blacks were one of the targets one oppression, and it strikes as odd, why the vast majority Blacks support either gun control or the Democratic Party, the Party of gun control.
Normally, Blacks would recoil from anything that had caused them to be seen as less than Whites.
1
Yet on this same day, the US Navy was naming its next aircraft carrier after Doris Miller, the first enlisted person and first African American to be so honored. Many of the arguments in this piece are spot on but the author’s fatalistic bias does not match the arc of our history. Onward and upward!
3
Some commenters and one Times article attempt to give the false impression that this is about background checks.
From the Southwest Times ( a Virginia Paper):
Senate Bill 16 would make it illegal to sell or even possess of a number of firearms that are currently legal. Those in violation of this proposed law would be guilty of a felony.
SB 16 would make any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed capacity of more than 10 rounds illegal. In addition, the possession of any center fire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has a thumbhole stock, pistol grip or a second hand grip or a threaded barrel would also automatically become a felony.
Any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds will also be illegal to own if this bill passes. If the pistol has the ability to accept a detachable magazine other restrictions apply, which include banning threaded barrels and prohibiting pistols weighing 50 ounces or more.
Shotguns with the ability to accept detachable magazines or having a fixed capacity of over seven rounds would also become illegal to own.
As a result, every rifle with the common AR-15 design and many pistols and shotguns that are currently in common use for personal defense and target shooting would be banned. Since they would be illegal to own, they would have to be either surrendered or seized by law enforcement authorities.
11
@Raz
But SB 16 was struck down in committee, so it never even reached the floor for debate.
The three bills that were actually on the floor 1) allowed localities to choose whether guns would be permitted at public events, 2) put in place a one-a-month limit on handgun purchases, and 3) expanded background checks to all private transfers of guns.
None of the bills voted on and passed required anything like the seizure of guns.
37
@MJB Too bad they didn't require seizure of automatic weapons. No one needs an AR-15 for hunting or protecting their home. A Glock in a secure case would be more effective.
4
Sounds like a good law that VA should pass and which clearly does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
This article is ridiculous. First of all, the rally contained every race and every gender. There were even groups at the rally holding signs and flags reading "gun rights are trans rights" and "gun rights are gay rights." Everyone most certainly is included in the 2nd amendment. Second, it is true that this country has a racist past, as does every country, people act like the United States invented slavery, we weren't even the last country to outlaw it, slavery is still a problem today across the world. And third, if you want to talk about the country's racist history, gun control is almost always used to disarm minority populations, that's why we are fighting it, you see the strictest gun control in inner cities were you have the highest minority population. Gun rights are everyone's rights. The 2nd amendment doesnt infringe on the 1st, it is the only thing defending it. And finally this rally was allowed to continue because it was a peaceful protest on an infringement of constitutional rights. The US constitution does not guarantee socialism, infact quite the opposite, it guarantees we don't fall into socialism.
53
@Chandler Mann What percentage of the rally were white males? All I see in the pictures of the rally are white males. Many people stayed away because of the presence of so many armed men, therefore the logical conclusion is that the second amendment infringes upon the first amendment
65
@Chandler Mann Okay, I have a question I'm curious about, and I would have liked to test it but I have a family.
I'm not white, a naturalised US citizen. Been here for 40 years, successful, etc. Suppose I went there and started arguing with them. Unarmed. It would be entirely verbal. I wouldn't lift a finger in anger (and if I did, I agree, I would deserve whatever happened). But I would only be talking/arguing. Do you think I could do that with any/all of them without getting hurt? That is my right too, after all, is it not?
Are you denying that there are people with anger issues that shouldn't be having a gun but do?
So I didn't do anything like that because I wouldn't trust a response that said "no, you wouldn't get hurt". But suppose that was indeed the situation, where people weren't killing each other due to hate, then I would be okay with guns.
No right of yours trumps someone else's right to life and I also think speech (which was chilled in my case since I was afraid to confront them) is a more important right than gun ownership.
I am against gun control for the record.
22
@Steve Had the government used its power to keep counter protesters from speaking out, the First Amendment would have been infringed upon. Simply not speaking out because you fear a private citizen whose position you disagree with is not a limitation on free speech that meets the standard of a violation of one's Constitutional rights. The government using the point of a gun to prevent a protest would meet that standard. The First Amendment is not germane to the conversation.
4
Of all the probably over 100 different groups, races, and nationalities in the U.S., there is only one who did not choose to be here.
8
@Jim Tagley
That was exceptionally well-said.
The following quote is instructive...“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is NOT unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion for the District of Columbia vs Heller decision in 2008. (caps are mine).
Interesting that the Heller decision was so lauded by the NRA and gun rights advocates since it found within the Second Amendment an individual right to gun ownership. Yet Justice Scalia felt it necessary to point out the limitations of the right. Also interesting was that a so-called Constitutional originalist, Scalia, “found” a right in the Constitution. Something that for years conservatives have criticized liberals for doing.
2
This march of 22,000 gun-toting white radicals was a dry run. A test. They have seen the possibilities. The next one might be so deadly, that Virginia will not have the resources to subdue it.
5
Great article from Bouie and I agree with all of it especially that the protestors are "...seemingly unaware of how they’re the only ones who could protest in this manner." If there were a Venn diagram of gun rights activists and white nationalists there would be a lot of overlap.
5
Jamelle Bouie gives a interesting historical perspective of role that guns have played in the construction of a social hierarchy based on race in America.
However, lets keep in mind in 2020, any black person can walk into a gun store and also long as that person meets they legal requirements for that particular state, they can purchase a firearm.
1
@Carl Perhaps, but watch an African American - or group of African Americans - walk around on the street wearing military gear, carrying revolutionary slogans, and packing AR-15s and see whether they receive the same restrained response from law enforcement. Equal application of that legality is still far from reality.
4
All these bearded fellows with their flamboyant equipment and clothing, and especially conspicuous firearms, are certainly disagreeable. Yet they purport to be loyal to the country and to support it. We may cavil with what it is that inspires their loyalty, but surely the there's a distinction to be made with your group of equally heavily-armed black nationalists, from whom no such commitment of loyalty and support would ever be forthcoming, quite the contrary.
It seems to me that the state is quite within its rights in treating differently those who say they support it from those who profess hostility. Both have the same freedom to speak and assemble peaceably, but the latter group might be viewed with greater caution, which could in turn translate into some amount of preparation. Is this unreasonable? I think not.
2
Yes, the image of a white man with a gun standing next to the flag, amber waves of grain behind him, evokes pride. The image of a black man with a gun, no matter the context, evokes anxiety, fear. But is this surprising? Majorities are ever afraid of minorities. People, of whatever color, are not innately cosmopolitan, liberal, tolerant, and race-blind. Leftists teach kids the evils of America without giving them any historical context, leaving them to see our ills as unique in the world.
Race is a bigger problem in oh-so-white Europe; and racism is particularly bad in Eastern Europe, which is whiter still. Tribalism and clan conflict has torn Africa apart since before colonialism. What is distinctive about America is the extent to which it has changed, has "civilized," has been able to build the first ever multiracial democracy. Our gun insanity, and our violence, is to be expected in a frontier nation inhabited, once, by mysterious, sometimes-brutal Neolithic tribes. How surprising is it that a white majority has tried to tear up this democracy since blacks were enfranchised and since our immigration levels have gone up?
There's a way in which woke progressives agree with illiberal whites, in the sense that they imply that skin color, income level, and background, determine who you are, what you see and how you see it. What was once called bigotry is now enlightenment. ... You see only one aspect of American history, Bouie -- so why only read books you already agree with?
Guns give you power. Law abiding citizens know that. Therefore they want as much power as legally possible to keep law and order. Gun possession is an intelligent thing to do.
1
@rich williams
Guns kill, mostly the owners and owners family.
I am a bit overwhelmed by the news this week, so I might have missed something: Does anyone know why the (mostly? entirely?) white crowd of gun worshipers chose MLK Day for their march? I mean, what is their official reason?
Remember what MLK (and a host of other heroes--unarmed, truly courageous heroes) did for us? Remember how he was shot to death? A gun rally on MLK Day?
Do we really need an explanation?
7
A gun did end King’s life. The gun was owned and operated by a white man. Wake up and smell the racism behind the event.
PS The same gay and trans signs can be seen at Trump rallies behind him. Wake up and smell the propaganda.
The people who hate the second amendment and gun rights the most are those who are comfortably well off and have the police to do their bidding when it comes to violence. When 20,000 non violent people peaceably assemble with guns those secure in their money and power don't like it at all. Too bad. End homelessness, inequality, poverty, and change our society such that all people are free from want and you'd be less nervous.
1
Thank you. I am old enough to remember that gun control laws and public security officers first gained political interest when the Black Panthers read the law and marched through the California state capital bearing openly carrying guns.
3
Unfortunately, I believe data would show the number of people killed from gunfire is disproportionately aligned with non-white shooters. Keeping our collective heads in the sand around this and not honestly dealing with the problem is simply not working.
3
The way to deal with the problem begins with getting rid of guns.
This thoughtful and observant tracing of Republican ballistic fanaticism to the unextirpated, unreconstructed stain of secessionist white supremacism is a profound and vital journalistic service. And it depicts a horror quite present and volatile in almost all strands of our chronic national disintegration.
3
Someone show me where anywhere in the modern world there is a lack of guns and ammunition that prevents people from fighting back or fighting for their cause. Guns are everywhere. No trouble getting all you want. Guns are like bacteria. They are better at what they do than we are at stopping them. They were invented , designed, and redesigned to kill as thoroughly and efficiently as possible. Just like bacteria. And the answer from Second Amendment folks is to flood the world with bacteria thinking that overgrowth is not dangerous and vaccines and handwashing are a waste of time. They argue bacteria have the right to be here and anyone who wishes to limit their prevalence is un patriotic. And they cannot see why lots and lots of people have a problem with that view.
2
Thanks Mr Bouie. I always enjoy learning new ways to understand and interpret our American journey from you.
2
California banned open carry because the Black Panthers walked into the State Legislature armed to the teeth with handguns, long guns, and belts of ammunition. Nobody had done that before and open carry of guns was mostly a hunting season thing until the Panthers did this. Given that the Panthers talked about how white officials were pigs and that the people should kill the pigs, the fear that this display produced was to be expected.
But if one went into the communities where most African Americans lived, one would find a lot of gun owners who owned guns for hunting, target shooting , and home protection. In rural areas, everyone had guns because they were needed.
The image Mr. Bouie is presenting of the gun being the emblem of the white supremacist oppressor is hyperbole and it just adds to the confusion. What is true is that those who are white supremacists and white nationalists who display weapons to intimidate others are truly a social problem which we all need to address.
But let's get to the real problem with gun violence, it's too little gun control in highly densely populated areas and a failure to address the risks of allowing people who are highly likely to commit physical violence to retain guns. That would be people who have acted out violently without reason and those who are often so affected by emotions or substance abuse that they cannot act responsibly. That would be people who think that guns are a way to intimidate others into doing as they want.
50
@Casual Observer
There is plenty of gun control in most of the big cities.
But not much in many states. One need not be a rocket scientist to travel to another state, go to a gun show, and buy as many guns as you want. Then, return to one's city to use the guns, or sell them.
We need national gun laws.
16
@Casual Observer
"The image Mr. Bouie is presenting of the gun being the emblem of the white supremacist oppressor is hyperbole"
Its not hyperbole when Starbuck's coffee houses need to post "no firearms" signs on their doors!
10
The Black Panthers never advocated murder of police.
Their support of guns was for self protection.
10
Great column, thanks. It's valuable to know the historical background of this bit of horror.
1
It might seem counterintuitive, but in my experience the people that truly fear government the most are conservatives -- which, of course, are predominantly white and male. I know a lot of these guys. Most are nice guys. I don't share some of their views, but I grew up with them. They'd help your grandmother across the street or help you change your tire. They do, however, have an unwavering distrust of government. This is arguably in the American DNA. They quite literally equate guns with freedom. It's on the same level for them as free speech. Gun control, for them, is a slippery slope to tyranny. It's not entirely illogical. Bad things have happened to the disarmed populace. It's hard for a lot of people to understand, but if you were born into their family and raised where they were raised, you'd share the same views. Many of them would probably be fine with "reasonable" gun control, if somebody could assure them that the ultimate goal wasn't confiscation. The problem is that the ultimate goal for a lot of progressives IS confiscation. Thus, every gun control measure is met with skepticism. Wash, rinse, repeat. If you're going to live with guns, you're going to live with gun violence. If you're going to live without out guns in the U.S., well, you probably need to get acquainted with civil unrest in all its various forms.
1
What “bad things have happened to the disarmed population”?
The people in rightwing militias have never been victimized by the government in any way that would justify armed resistance.
The argument that arms are needed to resist government tyranny is not only spurious but frightening.
Who determines what constitutes “tyranny”?
Witness the lawless actions against the government and the people by the odious, thieving Bundy family and their exoneration by a frightening number of equally lawless bigots.
Thank God the founding fathers did not enumerate a right for an individual to ride a horse or operate a carriage as we would be pushing for the rights of any individual to operate a car, a tractor trailer, or any other kind of motorized vehicle. Imagine an amendment: "the right of the people to ride a horse or operate a carriage shall not be infringed". No training, no driver's ed, no age limit and no license required! Getting on the roads would be lots of fun, just no guarantee you'll ever arrive safely at your destination.
4
Or 22,000 brown-skinned citizens demanding that we finally adhere to this assertion about why our nation is supposed to be a "shining light"…
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is so true, both historically and presently, that denying it takes delusion, sophistry or hypocrisy in large doses.
1
yep. these demonstrators would have been much more credible had they left their guns at home, in the car, etc. Open carry clearly implies that you argue with them at the risk of your life.
3
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve pointed out like the author the history of California’s restrictive open carry laws and who and why they were enacted to my gun loving coworkers. Most of him refuse to believe me.
1
I liked the counterfactual examples. I do believe that 22K black people armed would have been treated very differently. Also 22K women armed. Let's also mention religion as we imagine 22K armed muslims and how the whole country would have reacted to that. There is no equality in the US at the moment.
4
Jamelle Bouie is the best op ed columnist at the NYTimes in many years. He has a scholarly sensibility and a historical perspective that make his articles extremely informative and original.
5
22000 gun owners march without incident and the the NYT and its readership opine like they rioted. Mr. Bouie would have us believe that gun rights advocates are arming for a race war. How is banning guns going to stop the lunatic fringe from arming? Or are all gun owners lunatics by his calculus? By extension he calls me a racist and denegrates my personal choice because I own a gun. But doesn't it say something positive about our society that a large group can congregate with responsible gun ownership on display without violence. I never used to give credence to the slippery slope argument on the right that gun control leads to confiscation. I used to think reasonable people could find reasonable accomodations, but after hearing the spirit of the left, I have my doubts. The basic reasoning is that I can't own a gun because it makes those who don't uncomfortable.
2
Ownership of guns does more than “make people uncomfortable.”
It kills more than thirty thousand of them every year.
It’s a sick society that tolerates that.
I would be so much more impressed with the protest/ scholars who gathered in Richmond if their extensive knowledge of the constitution went further then the 2nd amendment.
Perhaps a quick perusal would show that the Virginia’s legislative body has the right under the tenth amendment to pass laws including those that relate to gun ownership.
Also, the idea that some jackbooted government official is going to knock down your on your door and forcefully take your precious assault rifle away is protected by the fourth amendment.
So take the time to read the constitution and all the 27 other amendments and stop reading the squirrelly stuff you read on the internet about how you are not being respected.
Its hard to respect anyone who totes around a small arsenal while most people simply carry breath mints and hand sanitizers. I fear trees falling on my head when I walk my dog. I don’t wear a hard hat everyday.
5
A lot of the men in the photos look like misfits and loners. The sort of odd men out who got bullied as kids because they didn't quite fit in.
Maybe that is the whole issue right there. Perhaps many of those lobbying for open armaments on town and city streets are men who felt helpless, hurt, and humiliated when they were kids.
So, they have grown up to love big guns because they like imagining what they would do to those childhood bullies if they came around today.
5
With all the advent of technology for facial recognition perhaps these public demonstrations with guns will help law enforcement and Homeland Security to keep an eye on some of these angry men.
5
Are we arguing here for greater expansion of gun ownership because gun rights were unevenly bestowed before? I'm white, and my feeling of alienation from these white guys with their guns in Richmond couldn't be greater. I don't want black men to have guns for the same reason I don't want these white men or any men to have guns. I won't back down one bit on believing that guns should be strictly regulated and kept out of the hands of all US citizens, just because our past evenly granted rights of gun ownership.
73
@Maureen Yes. Their attitude frightens me deeply too.
4
I think Bouie’s right about the iconicity, but I sure don’t recall Davy Crockett being a considerable tub and shooting his mouth off nearly as much as these guys. I also don’t recall any John Wayne movies where the Duke waved a fancy gun around a lot...or seemed to need quite so many of ‘em, come to think of it.
5
It is no coincidence that the 22,000 armed white men descended on Richmond on Martin Luther King Day. The symbolism is certainly an intentional provocation.
Grim times.
6
Finally, a columnist says in print what was obvious to me and every other person of color I spoke to about that event. Armed white men wearing masks and military drag? How was that tolerated?
143
@mch. And bulletproof vests. That was the image that caught my attention. Why the vest unless you were looking for a fight and expecting it?
16
@mch Because of the right of free "speech", even hateful speech. It was also allowed (and defended by the ACLU for neo-Nazis to stage a march in a city containing many holocaust victims and their families. Even offensive speech is protected in this country
6
As a white man I am disgusted by the many white men who remain ignorant of the power and privilege they inherited simply by virtue of their birth. That so many of these white men in the United States are now armed to the hilt and angry at the demographic shift that will soon render them a minority is a problem that will inevitably have to be addressed. Federally funding gun control research as a public health issue is a good place to begin, as is not buying shares of gun company stocks, especially as their value often increases after school shootings.
6
Sadly I have to come to believe that there is a deep racism underpinning a large part of political and social life in much of the United States. One of the main cause if that, unlike Japan and Germany after 1945, or South Africa after 1993, the United States has never had to go through a full and complete reckoning of its racist past.
The horrors inflicted upon black men and women after the civil war and after the federal troops withdrew are now better known and documented. Some of these planned massacres (Tulsa 1921, Wilmington 1898, to name a few) were carried out with the full complicity of these states national guards and judicial authorities. I can't think of a better equivalent than anti-jewish pogroms in the early 1900s in Russia or Eastern Europe.
The Watchmen series has it exactly right: White man with a gun is defending the constitution, black man with a gun is a danger to the community.
3
Thank you for a beautifully written article. keep uo the good work.
2
Plenty of minority gun owners, as judged by the locations of shootings in Philadelphia.
1
I will never travel to the South.I cannot imagine driving my car with New England plates through areas with these fanatics.My heart goes out to all of the reasonable people that live there.
3
@Nora I've visited Massachusetts many, many times when my daughter lived in Worcester. Drove up there with my Georgia license plate on the car.
You know, the people up there "talk funny" but I found most of the people to be very friendly, reasonable people. There are jerks everywhere, but please don't let them scare you. Don't be afraid to visit any part of our beautiful country.
1
Mr. Blow, I often don’t agree with your rhetoric. In this case, it appears you’re spot on. The next question: Do we have the fortitude to dig deeper? Without a deeper understanding of what appears to be an egregious series of events, we will likely just condemn them or bless them. Doesn’t that seem like a false dichotomy enabling a foolish choice about events of such significance?
There's some interesting history in this article, but casting gun ownership in terms of race is an oversimplification. About half of white households have a gun in the home, which is only about 17% higher than the number of black households with guns, which in turn is 10% more than the number of Hispanic households with guns. (Pew, 2017)
The really glaring difference is between urban and rural households; rural households have double the rate of gun ownership as urban ones. And rural gun owners tend to have multiple guns in the home in higher percentages. This I believe is reflective of a much higher passion and identification with gun ownership among rural people than urban ones. Tellingly, people of all races and genders who identify as Republican tend to own guns at over twice the rate as people identifying as Democrats.
So while it is true that race can be predictive of gun ownership, the higher predictors are gender, (men own guns in much higher percentages than women), political persuasion, and whether the person lives in a rural area or in a city.
Note that the article doesn't cite much historical basis at all for the much lower rate of gun ownership by white women than white men overall. Thus while historical issues around race may play a role in gun ownership, it's an oversimplification to view it primarily through that lens. Gender (regardless of race), political bent, and living in the country or the city are also major factors.
54
@Jack Your post would be helpful if you accepted the racial lens as inextricable from the other lenses you mention. Racism can never be either/or in this country. One of the points of this piece is to raise our racial consciousness to the obvious link between gun rights and white supremacy, as Bouie so clearly demonstrates. We whites make this mistake a lot when race is raised as a "reason"; we try to defend other perspectives by saying race is incidental or "what about x?", instead of acknowledging the obvious, that upholding the myth of whiteness is the "why" behind the support for the gun lobby, and it always will be, until we succeed in decolonizing our thinking and redefine manhood as "a man who lays down his gun (life) for a friend (brother of another race) and who knows he doesn't need a gun to be strong and capable, only love can demonstrate that.
38
@Jack - "Republican tend to own guns at over twice the rate as people identifying as Democrats."
What's the % of gun ownership for republicans living in urban areas with strict gun control vs the democrats that live in those same areas? What's the % for democrats, if you can find any, living in rural areas which have no to minimal gun control vs republicans? Focus on dems vs pubs falls short unless you include all the demographics that can make a difference.
7
Another predictor that is better than race is whether you live in the northeast (a former free state) or not.
Black vs white gun ownership is an evolving story where geography and time both play a role. Pew doesn't mention how this ratio compares between former slave states and former free states, and how it has changed with time.
The national race gap in gun ownership is not negligible. But it's still a single number. The richer story of race gap is in the distribution of this number in time and geography.
2
From the Southwest Times ( a Virginia Paper):
Senate Bill 16 would make it illegal to sell or even possess of a number of firearms that are currently legal. Those in violation of this proposed law would be guilty of a felony.
SB 16 would make any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed capacity of more than 10 rounds illegal. In addition, the possession of any center fire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has a thumbhole stock, pistol grip or a second hand grip or a threaded barrel would also automatically become a felony.
Any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds will also be illegal to own if this bill passes. If the pistol has the ability to accept a detachable magazine other restrictions apply, which include banning threaded barrels and prohibiting pistols weighing 50 ounces or more.
Shotguns with the ability to accept detachable magazines or having a fixed capacity of over seven rounds would also become illegal to own.
As a result, every rifle with the common AR-15 design and many pistols and shotguns that are currently in common use for personal defense and target shooting would be banned. Since they would be illegal to own, they would have to be either surrendered or seized by law enforcement authorities.
16
@Raz Sounds like a very intelligent and well thought-out gun law. Too many of the kinds and types of weapons prohibited in this proposed legislation have lead to the innumerable mass shootings that have and are plaguing America.
19
@Raz Sounds Draconian. But Australia just went down that path without much fuss.
@Raz sounds perfectly reasonable. Nobody needs such weapons. Nobody.
1
It's heartbreaking to watch our country divided over such petty thing's. Everyone thinks someone is sitting there just waiting for the big bad wolf to take their rights away. Common sense has left the building.
48
@karen
This is not petty.
22,000 heavily armed people "ready to take action" is not petty. Jamelle Bouie has phrased it right: The second amendment is more important than the first, and that is the danger.
46
@karen : Everyone thinks white men with guns are out to kill them: common sense has left the building.
6
I'm a lifelong Republican from Wyoming, the #1 state, per capita, in gun ownership.
I own guns. So what? No big deal there.
I have never joined the NRA. I have never feared "having my guns taken away." That line (like the NRA) is just a sick marketing handle for the sale of surplus small arms being produced by the US military industrial complex.
I also live in New Zealand, which had the common sense to outlaw military small arms with large magazines. One of my neighbors is a professional deer hunter who culls the invasive species from aircraft at high altitude. Not even he "needs" 20 round magazines like an American school shooter uses to slaughter classmates.
My fear is that America is now what Eisenhower warned it could be in 1961: a (now) bankrupted and socially collapsing global military empire, with armed militias coming hundreds and thousands of miles (like Iraq militias) to intimidate and threaten lawful democracy...as was the case in Virginia.
262
@John in Laramie
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force.
Donnie Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump haven't been among them. Nor have Ivanka, Tiffany and Lara Trump. No Jared Kushner either.
Most Americans pretend to be brave honorable patriots by rising to sing the national anthem and salute the flag at sporting events.
White European men with guns ethnically cleansed, colonized and conquered the Indigenous people of New Zealand and Wyoming. While slaughtering the endemic fauna for fun and profit.
16
If this protest was for gun rights, it makes more sense that people would gather peacefully and armed with ideas rather than guns. If it was actually for gun rights, arming to the teeth just defeated their cause and purpose.
From their actions, it was clearly not purely a gun issue for them but more of a power issue of a group that wanted to express its strength in violence capability. This group / ideology uses the fight for gun rights as a guise for its deeper purpose. They wanted to intimidate other groups as well as the state government. For these purposes, they could claim that they were successful in achieving the goal and even recruiting more gun rights advocates for their cause.
137
@B Nguyen: Look up the definition of tyranny.
Think on this: the spoken word has instigated more violence than any other means.
5
@B Nguyen
Every gun owning man I've ever come across (in 80+ years) wasn't so much interested in expressing his "strength in violence capability" as proving he had what it takes you-know-where. And beefing it up by riding a hog.
7
The BBC interviewed two participants who were not eloquent enough to explain the reason behind their being there and lugging their huge weaponry. Both kept mentioning the 2nd amendment. It would be interesting to know how they can afford such surely very expensive equipment and who financed their trip.
74
@val If you can afford a low-end used motor scooter in America you can afford a good semi-automatic rifle. Also, budget domestic travel in the US is not expensive. Politically, I can't stand the people who took part in this rally. However, if you're implying that this is some sort of elite-financed movement that is paying for people's weapons and travel, I'm afraid you really don't understand American politics or the realities of daily life in America. I'm not blaming you, but that's just the way it is.
23
I find it interesting to note the word "race" has two meanings. First, in the context of this op-ed, race refers to the characteristics of all branches of humankind. But it also refers to a competition to determine the fastest one on a fixed course.
Melding the two definitions gives us a slightly different but more meaningful interpretation. Racial differences such as skin color or bone structure may define or separate even segregate us but the course through life can be viewed as a race between all of these contestants. And it is no accident whites start out first and fastest in this marathon.
And they are armed with guns. What could possibly go wrong with this arrangement? (Hint: consider Las Vegas or El Paso or Columbine or Charleston or...)
2
Do I detect the wish being the mother of the thought in this piece? I also have found it strange that the embrace of the gun by POC is employed only in their own communities, which have been intentionally segregated, while mere miles away the beneficiaries of that segregation live lives of security behind gates and under the watchful eyes of the police state.
20
@Thomas The isolation of people of color is a serious problem. I wish we spent as much time talking about how to correct that problem as we do talking about gun laws.
But too many of us find that it's much more fun to assign blame and pejorative labels to other people (especially those large groups not perceived as victims in today's society) than it is to solve difficult problems.
11
As an outsider to all this, I do wonder about the whole issue of gun violence in the US, It seems such a unique phenomenon, no other first world country comes close to the US when it comes to gun violence, why is this so? Many other countries have guns also, but only a tiny fraction of incidents of violence.
I'm genuinely interested in these issues, I have American friends and visit often, I have a genuine soft spot for American culture but id does concern me just how much you seem to want to kill each other.
I would like to add that I'm not anti gun ownership, I shoot when I'm in the US and enjoy it a lot, but I don't understand the need to walk around armed to the teeth with semiautomatic rifles, all I see in these people is fear, fear of others, fear of the government, fear of those different to themselves, they wrap it up in patriotic machismo, but I just see the terrible fear that someone is out to get them, and they need to be "armed for bear" when that happens, I find it a sad state of affairs.
An English Friend.
172
@Epaminondas Yes, fear is what is drivinf the U.S. today. Fear of others, fear of being left behind economically, fear of cultural change, and fear in general.
It's a lot of fear for a nation that claims power over the whole world.
How sad.
53
@Epaminondas we have a very bad diet which is causing mass mental illness and driving gun violence because ownership is easy enough. Legislation isn't going to stop criminals from gun ownership. It's only going to leave law abiding citizens unprotected.
5
In public schools and at home, Americans stopped teaching their children right or wrong. It is all about the individual only and gross materialism.
13
I was in college during the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. I had a professor that asked us about what we thought of the situation. It was a comparative studies course, so the majority of the students were liberal (myself included) and our reaction was that the government was doing the right thing. The professor then turned the tables on us and asked if we thought that government would be right if that was a group of socialists. He asked if we would believe the stories of child molestation pushed by the government? Whether we would agree that breaking federal laws about accumulating guns were fair in the face of a majority that was prejudiced against our erstwhile gang of socialists? It opened my eyes. We see government action in the twisted light of our political biases. We cheer when they go after those that we think are different than us and condemn when they go after "us".
6
If you will read "Thundersticks" by David Silverman you will see that Indigenous Americans were just as well armed as early colonists along the Atlantic Seaboard, the colonists were weak in numbers and needed native allies - the Native Americans understood firepower and political alliance as well as anyone, and the French and English esp. made sure they were well armed and supplied.
5
Lets just step back and ask the most pertinent question here. Why? Why are these laws being proposed ( and if you stop and think about it they are pretty benign laws- no guns are being taken from any one except those who are dangers to self or others)? These protestors are marching and displaying their firepower as if the government is behaving irrationally, going after guns for no reason. But there is a reason, several, in fact. People are being killed by firearms: in their homes by suicide or murder, in malls, schools, and places of worship. And gun owners ONLY suggestion to address the cries of the people who want it to stop is for more people to carry more guns. We put safety caps on medication bottles. We search you and your bags before getting on airplanes. We remove dangerous products from shelves when people are hurt or killed by them. We put airbags and seatbelts in cars. And we recall products like cars to make repairs to address dangerous situations. But we only can put more guns into more hands no matter how bad it gets? In one sense I disagree with you, Mr. Bouie. Let these people protest. It gives the rest of us the opportunity to see firsthand how unreasonable their position is. It is just another time they say NO to ANY proposed solution. They show us how little they care about the rest of us. They really aren't promoting their cause. They are helping promote ours.
24
I am a Democrat and a gun owner. I also happen to be a caucasian male who lives in a rural area. I believe why this is happening is that the Democratic party is undergoing similar as to what has occurred in the Republican party. As the Republicans have been "purifying" themselves of those they derisively label as "RINOS", the Democrats are doing the same with the rural white male. If you are what used to be a "blue dog" Democrat, there is no room for you in the party. If you lived in VA and heard the condescension toward rural residents flowing from the geographicly very small Urban Crescent, you would quickly understand. Current bills in the House of Delegates wanting to ban outdoor and indoor shooting ranges, proposals to make it illegal to transport a black firearm, which apparently scares the far left, to your own properties for recreational or hunting purposes are ludicrous. Proposals to ban your own children under 18 to learn properly handle a firearm are ridiculous. In other words, the Democratic party has quickly only become a party of urbanites.
I’m a White grandmother in my mid-50’s. None of the White friends I grew up with went to college as I did. It was a working-poor blue-collar neighborhood. As kids, we had perhaps a dozen run-ins with cops in my youth for standard shenanigans: being out after curfew, drinking, smoking cannabis, speeding in a car, etc. There were similar situations at school: fights, talking back to teachers, etc. Not one of us was ever so much as given a ticket, or any more than detention at school.
My current Friends of Color relate entirely different stories of their youth and adults with school officials and cops, despite socioeconomic similarities both when they were kids and as adults.
The 3 times I have been a passenger and the driver African American during a police stop, the police were definitively more aggressive and militant, their hands on their guns, commands to step out of the vehicle, requests to search the car (despite not actually speeding, despite being in 'nice' cars and well-dressed).
I have never been issued a moving violation; despite a half dozen traffic stops in my life. I have never been asked to step out of the vehicle, never been asked if they could search my car.
While this is all anecdotal, the statistics reveal that People of Color, whether kids or adults, often receive dramatically harsher and more aggressive treatment at the hands of school officials and police as children, and police as adults. I can’t imagine having to live in fear of the police….
.
50
@SMcStormy
Having grown up in the South during segregation I remember one instance where I, a white girl, was threatened by the police for trying to give a cup of water from a white water fountain to a black child where, as almost always, someone had broken the "colored only" water fountain.
That was the day I learned to fear the police.
Mr. Bouie:
Your best writing that I have seen. American History blended with racial perspective in a very well written article.
Thank you.
35
Condoleeza Rice's father owned a gun, a shotgun if memory serves. Her remarks on "The View" in 2018: "When knight riders would come through our neighborhood, my father and friends would take their guns and fire in the air if anybody came through. I don’t think they actually hit anybody. But they protected the neighborhood"
7
"As I watched the rally, it was impossible not to think through counterfactuals. What if these were left-wing protesters instead?"
Well, on May 2, 1967, 30 Black Panthers, men and women, armed with rifles, pistols, and shotguns entered the California Capitol, without having previously notified the authorities or obtained permits to demonstrate. Ronald Reagan was on the lawn when they arrived. They were told to leave, but no one was shot and, to the best of my knowledge, no one was arrested.
Maybe the Panthers weren't "left-wing."
7
@2REP ... No one was arrested but laws were changed because the Black Panthers were armed. The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching. Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control. Governor Ronald Reagan, who was present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."
@Meredith ... True, Meredith. But keep in mind that in 1967 to have a militant and armed group march into a state capitol building was an unprecedented (as far as I have been able to determine) and shocking event. A lot has happened with regard to guns since then.
My point what the Boule was making it a "white man" thing while failing to mention the Panther's dramatic act. I do not oppose gun control, and I would ban the carrying of loaded firearms in public buildings of all kinds.
@2REP
After that protest, Ronald Regan signed into law the Mulford Act. It repealed the law that permitted the citizens to open carry firearms. So it became illegal to open carry in the state of California. RR commented,"no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of goodwill."
The Second Amended doesn't pertain to black people when it comes to owning guns. It's because of the preconceived notion that black people , especially black men are dangerous and must be treated as threat first, instead of as a person who is exercising their rights.
rather than focusing on the angst of the past, let's celebrate the many freedoms we now have.
sadly, now the iconic man with a gun is not white.
The crime rate statistics sadly and clearly indicate that black on black crime is something we need to address far more than racism these days.
Let's teach our kids tolerance and forgiveness, and message against vengeance and violence and disrespect.
18
@Bobbi Oh /Nearly all mass shooters are White.
How are we going to address that?
.
1
A great column. The vast majority of the electorate does not understand what they are protesting or supporting. They are following simplistic ideologies that FOX Opinion and other right-wing groups are trumpeting.
23
@Anthony
" The vast majority of the electorate does not understand what they are protesting or supporting."
These people are are protesting ANY restrictions on gun ownership.
These people are supporting the capability to use armed resistance against a government they feel may be tyrannical in terms of infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights.
You may not agree with these people but it's important to understand their point of view.
Carl,
I don’t accept the “resistance to government tyranny” argument at face value.
The people on this march were motivated by resistance to progressive government.
They heavily represent racism, homophobia, misogyny, and xenophobia, and a hypocrisy in which they rail against “elitism” while voting Republican, the very embodiment of wealth.
1
I would have expected an article about race and firearms in America to deal more directly with actual rates of gun ownership, illegal gun ownership, mass shootings (four or more shot in a single incident), and murders in the black community.
The white man with a gun may be "iconic," but the man with a gun uses that weapon, or falls victim to it, at a higher rate per capita. The black man with a gun is an iconic figure in rap and hip hop, with artists boasting about the models and number of their guns, and their willingness to use them.
Chicago had just short of 500 murders last year, mostly of young black men, mostly by firearms. Most were unsolved, but given the demographics and the trend among solved murders, most were also committed by black men.
In the city closest to me, Milwaukee, 99 people were murdered in 2019, and the demographics are the same. I've considered buying a gun many times, in what I consider weaker moments, out of fear for my safety and that of my family; fortunately, my rational mind and rational spouse have always prevailed.
The protesters who marched in Virginia are guilty of bad taste, intimidation, and, in my view, horrible judgment. They are also not criminals. If we're considering the real scourge of firearms in America, instead of just the optics, then this racial analysis misses the mark.
32
@Patrick
In fact gun deaths per 100,000 are higher among blacks in nearly every state. Seems they have embraced gun ownership fiercely.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
1
@Patrick If the iconography of hip hop disturbs you, what of the western, country music, cinema back through "birth of a nation" where armed white men rode on horseback... But those iconic images should be disregarded because reasons.
1
@Patrick And you miss the point by your lack of under- standing, willing or not, of the root source of the scourge you discuss -- the institutional racism that still plagues this country.
1
The Virginian Declaration of Rights, Article XIII clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is conditional. I stipulates that those with arms were to be organized under the authority of the civil government. Since states then saw themselves as independent nation the "Well-regulated Militia" was their response to a standing army. No, it did not work and the war of 1812 proved it.
This carried over into the Second Amendment and still presumed that the Militia was to be "well-regulated" not just a bunch of white men with guns.
The problem with the "Gun Control" movement is that they are afraid of the guns, but strangely, not afraid of the people who keep and bear them. At the same time governments make sure that all armed agents of the state are screened, trained, and qualified before being allowed to bear arms on behalf of the government.
As to a mass of black men showing up with guns, we know what would happen, the same thing that happened in California when then Gov. (saint) Reagan, passed the first gun control legislation.
Fear and dehumanization of the "other" has been, and still is, the operative force in the narrative.
At the same time we are treated to the rant that "illegals" kill 12 people every day but never mention that white men with guns kill about 100 every day.
America has real enemies but we are too busy fighting among ourselves to pay attention to the real threats.
22
@George N. Wells We actually have no idea what would happen. Making an assumption based on events decades old is not an accurate indicator of future events.
4
@John
Yes. You're right. The response this time around would most likely be worse.
1
Are you kidding me? We haven’t changed all that much in the last few decades.
Jefferson's overtly sanguine statement “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” is often cited as justification for arming to the teeth to maintain personal freedom. However, it should also be noted that he abhorred the violent excesses of the French Revolution. The popular struggle to overthrow the "ancien regime" in France devolved into chaos and arbitrary execution of anyone considered an enemy of the revolution.
Citizens of the US make their wishes known, for good or ill, by voting and without the threat of violence to the State.
11
I am a bit puzzled by the folks who think that arming themselves in this way will protect against tyranny. People, if the government wants to oppress us, these weapons won’t make a bit of difference. The government has far better ones.
22
@Smilodon7 Which is why the US government has won handily in Afghanistan against opponents who are not as well armed as these people. Politically, I'm really not a fan of the militia right. However, to claim that they aren't dangerous because the government has F-35s and Apache Helicopters is myopic. Also, who do you think serves in the military? How reliable do you think military really would be if there were even a half-serious rural insurrection in this country.
7
Yes, they are called "taxes." Who said "the power to tax is the power to destroy"?
Have to wonder how many of the 22,000 demonstrators draw some kind of public assistance. I would guess the percentage would be way above the national average.
45
@Washwalker Now that's just racist. You reach a conclusion about the members of this group based on their race. The article does not specify the number of POC present, only that the group is White Supremacist in nature.
It is time for some arithmetic and basic logic, instead of yet more handwringing emotion striving towards nothing concrete and ultimately leading nowhere.
This march consisted 22 thousand from across the country, determined, well organized and focused. When 220 million who oppose this militant ignorance, or even just a fraction thereof, say 22 million (which is 1000 times as many as 22 thousand), finally show similar determination, organization and focus, demand common sense gun regulation (background check, bans on military rapid fire weapons, etc), and boot out of power politicians beholden to the NRA instead of common sense, then most of those 22 thousand will take their guns, go home, and live peacefully with such regulation (as almost all people in most other civilized wealthy countries have done for many decades and centuries).
47
As a former Richmonder, the video clips of the rally posted on Twitter were scary to watch. Seeing groups of men in militarized gear marching the streets around where I once worked, played, and dined, the thing that scared me the most was realizing these were not police or military - they were regular citizens. A lot of people have said that if this group were black men, the NRA would be calling for gun confiscation. But I think if they were black men, you'd see the white men in the photo here marching from the other direction to confront them. Sometimes I wonder if that's what they want.
44
@Vexations Who is "they"?
If the Constitution was written to protect the people of democracy, then these people should practice the more potent and persuasive means for democracy than guns. The dubious rationale for the Second Amendment to engender arming of citizens to defend against perceived oppressive governments is rather archaic. Please move on from the 1700s, what other current democracy really believes in such stone-aged polemic! The Swiss may be in the same category, but their use of guns is tied to less violent expressions such as hunting.
Institutions and robust democratic process are true vanguards of democracy, not weapons with potential for serious societal harm. Stricter gun laws are not taking guns away, rather it is meant to reshape the intent of gun ownership. It's 2020, guns may be ok for recreation purposes (hunting) if people feel so strongly about guns, but cut the ties to the 2nd Amendment with all the political vitriol, and the American identity and liberty that goes with it... build better civil institutions and educate people about citizenship instead... guns are not in style anymore.
13
Animals would disagree that "hunting is less violent."
7
@Stephanie Wood I don't care about guns, have no interest in ever owning one. But I do care about animals/wildlife. I imagine that many of these men are hunters . Someday in the future I hope that hunting is banned.
3
Banning hunting would do more harm than good. Deer are a serious problem now because there are not enough hunters to keep their population in check. From a 2016 article in the Washington Post:
“Each year, deer in the United States are involved in more than more than 1 million collisions that cause more than 200 human deaths. They also cost a lot of money, according to State Farm, the country's top auto insurer, which says the average claim hovers around $4,000.”
There are 400 million plus guns in the US; more guns than humans. I don’t own a gun. I fear that when society breaks down, due to extreme poverty, food and water shortages, mass migrations caused by climate catastrophe, infectious diseases, or whatever calamity, that those with guns will kill the rest of us for some ugly form of survival.
35
@Betsy Brune Of course they will. This is what people have done throughout history and continue to do in broken societies that send thousands of fleeing citizens to Western nations. Every living creature must struggle to survive; we currently live off the largess of an unusually prosperous society, with much of that prosperity established by previous generations. When things fall apart, you will either fight or die.
7
@Betsy Brune
That is the point! They are alpha males who intend to survive.
@Betsy Brune
You said when,not if. So of course anyone capable of using one Should own a gun. You just made the Best argument possible for gun ownership.
It is certain that 150 years ago there were many unjust restrictions that prevented minorities from owning firearms. That most definitely is not the case today.
16
I won’t care about the ethnicity of the mad person who shoots me.
There is little evidence that guns were harder for minorities to obtain in the late 1800s.
We were entering the period of the large Colt revolver 150 years ago.
But:
“Guns” were big and awkward then.
They were nowhere near as accurate and difficult to conceal.
Most rifles were single-shot bolt-action weapons.
Side-arms, aside from low-power, maximum 2-shot derringers, were highly visible.
And, despite all the John Wayne moves, there were very few who catted weapons in public.
For purposes of armed conflict, as part of organized government militias, sure. Out hunting? Sure.
But you kept a gun, if you kept a gun, at home, otherwise.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about concealed carry or public display of weapons- if you ignore the use of punctuation, as it was used at the time it was written- allowing what is today the National Guard, then you could own a gun, at the time written, a single-shot muzzle-loading device.
Or a bow, a much more dangerous weapon.
The Constitution gives one no right to walk down the street with a lethal weapon, concealed or in a manner threatening to all who see you (are you comfortable seeing random individuals on the street with guns?).
Incidentally- to those who say “if the military can have them, I can”, you can’t - try getting a permit for a fully automatic weapon, s surface to air missile, or a hydrogen bomb.
Ok, the military has MIRVD ICBMs, Well I want one too!
Right
@Andrew I dunno. I was at a Walmart a few weeks ago, and there were plenty of camo-covered white guys there with their pistols holstered prominently, pretending they don't care how manly they look.
A black man walked down the main aisle (no camo), with an exact same type of holstered weapon, and every. single. one. of those white guys moved into a defensive "yeah, I'm watching you" mode.
It's tempting to pretend that race problems ended 150 years ago.
1
@Andrew
Instead, the police shoot down any minority with a pair of scissors, let alone a gun. Who needs laws?
We here so much about gun violence these days. Mass shootings all too often. Most of the gun violence in America is committed on the streets of inner cities. Most with illegal guns. Back and forth with ideas about gun regulation, but how do we get illegal guns off the streets.
11
@D The vast majority of illegal weaponry is stolen (see, e.g., https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf )
So you can think of illegal weaponry as a parasitic loss on the legal population. The larger the host population, the larger the parasitic population.
The focus on regulation of the legal population of weapons is an attempt to reduce the efficiency with which legal weapons become a illegal weapons (i.e., what fraction are stolen or 'borrowed' by family members/friend). But the shear scale of weaponry in the US means that the volume of illegal weaponry will likely continue to dwarf that in similar western countries (per capita).
9
@Mark
Logic and facts are beyond people who say things like D said. I believe D is not a real poster but rather is a plant. They are not interested in facts or resolution. They like to complain to add to unrest.
8
It would help if every gun owner was responsible and locked up their weapons. There’s safes that allow quick access.
This is an important story. It asks what the reaction would have been if it had been 22,000 black citizens with guns supporting a cause. It provides a context for the violent approach to policy that no-control gun advocates think is appropriate. It shows the ignorance that has been emboldened by those currently in office in Washington.
29
@C.B. Taylor
I bet that if 22,000 unarmed black men had legally congregated in Virginia, the police would have come out in riot gear, probably "supported" by those same (white) gunslingers we saw last weekend.
1
This column ignores three important facts. First, about 20% of black Americans own one or more guns. Second, about 50% of black Americans, according to a recent survey, believe that owning a gun makes one safer. Third, in the early 20th century, when Jim Crow laws were in effect, many blacks were able to defend themselves from racial incidents due to their ownership and display of guns.
21
The article didn't ignore black gun ownership. It addressed the differences in how gun ownership by white men is viewed and its historical basis.
47
@Ulysses
You didn't address the article premise. In the early 70s, TV often lit up about 'Black Panthers with guns'. To be clear that drama was about hand guns. I can remember white America's horror. (I'm a white, older female) We now have menacing crowds of white men swagger their constitutional right to assembly by parading around in tactical gear, hiding their faces, and carrying the biggest guns they can carry. What would the reaction be if those were crowds of black men? That is the premise.
34
@JEAiil The premise is assumed, not proven. The assumption that the Virginia government would have reacted differently to black men rallying for gun rights is in no way apparent or obvious.
2
Thank you, Jamelle Bouie, for the history of American gun ownership and the inequality of power.
While the Richmond protesters threatened a rebellion, the rich slave-owner George Washington actually used gun violence to kill government members and overthrow it.
Those of us who want to stop racism should ask whether we would accept similar actions by black, brown and all other minorities when the rights to which they are entitled are violated.
If not, then why celebrate the Fourth of July?
9
@MB We celebrate the Fourth of July because it was the day we declared independece from Britain.
A true sportsman, or sportswoman using a weapon to kill their prey would, to me, prefer to use (no, not a debit card at Walmart) a bow and arrow, or maybe a .22 rifle.
Clearly, these guys (mostly) packing high powered, high capacity rifles, pistols and some even brandishing .50 caliber weapons aren’t hunters.
No, it seems they’re vulnerable souls who’ve been manipulated to think that somehow, they’re going to go up against a pretty darn powerful, massively better armed, much better organized and trained military with their expensive pop guns and tattoos - and do what, exactly?
Get a lot of peopled pointlessly and needlessly killed and maimed, that’s what, exactly. Thanks NRA. Thanks Fox News. Thanks GOP. Thanks nation of uncritical thinkers, and angry victims. God help us.
41
@GJ
I almost don't want to point out that a lot of gun owners are prior military and even more have a history of military service in their families. There are also reasons other than hunting to have a weapon but any tool whose main purpose is to kill should have some minimal legal requirements to verify safe handling. Driving requires a licence because a single car can kill dozens, there are many constitutional rights that have established limits, the NRA propaganda has convinced many there should be no limits on guns... except for criminals and potential criminals who are mostly minorities in the NRAs explanation.
8
@GJ You must not know all that much about hunting. In Idaho, where I hunt, the main animals that get hunted are elk. By law, we cannot hunt them with a .22 because it's considered cruel. Almost any shot taken won't actually kill the creature, so it'll just suffer unnecessarily.
Furthermore, I would like to ask what you mean by 'high-powered' or 'high-capacity' rifles. If you're referring to AR-15 rifles, they fit into neither category. The round they fire (5.56x45) is far less powerful than common hunting rounds like the .308 or 30.06, and since virtually every AR-15 is sold with a 30-round magazine it can't be defined as high-capacity.
Finally, if widespread gun confiscation is ever legislated, I think that you would find most of the military and police forces would refuse to enact such unconstitutional commands. And even if they tried to, the US military has 1.3 million troops and another 865k reserves. There are also between 750k and 850k law enforcement officers as well. That's a total of just over 2 million people who may or may not enforce said laws. There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in the US, and they own roughly 390 million firearms. Every military in the world combined only produces 75 million troops.
If it comes to a revolution, I imagine we'll do fine.
6
Thanks for the reassurance. I’ll be watching from Amsterdam or maybe Montreal.
2
Amazing that the author says the only reason the protest wasn't violent was because leftist groups did not go! It's certainly true that if progressive activists were there, there would have been violence because it's typically the progressive activists like Antifa who engage in violence. With conservative groups, you typically have peaceful people who are respectful to police, and who clean up after themselves.
16
@R.P.
Provocative comment: Conservatives that support gun ownership and use form peaceful mobs who don't litter and stick flowers in the barrels of police guns. Pretty sure that is not how things went in Richmond. With only gun rights groups (highly armed) marching, with great wisdom those groups that support gun safety measures stayed away from what could have been a very dangerous confrontation.
Apparently the slogans from Charlottesville (ex: Jews will not replace us) were also missing along with the torches. Congratulations to attendees who pulled off a peaceful protest while openly armed to their teeth.
1
You mean like the right-wing group in Oregon that took over a national perk a few years back. Statistics demonstrate far greater violence from right-wing extremists than Antifa or any lefr-wing groups.
1
@R.P.
No, it's because the 22,00 had no targets to kill or beat up, like they did in charlottesville. There they attacked all the counter protesters. Because they came armed and ready to hurt people.
With no one to hurt, except for the police, yes thet were peaceful enough. Esp after promising violence.
The only thing I can say, looking at these photos, we have a long way to go, before we become civilized.
35
@Giuseppe
We never will. And if Dump is re-elected, which is probably what will happen then this country will surely slide from a cold civil war into a shooting war. Too many right wingers are frothing at that mouth to blow away anyone who doesn't look, act or think like they do. We are done as a country and my only hope is something like the Caronavirus or other pandemic takes out the entire human race. We don't deserve this planet.
1
I believe what AUng San Suu Kyi has said applies here:
"There will be change, because all the military has are guns."
I watched the white male protesters being interviewed by reporters. Seemed like the larger the gun, the smaller the... whatever.
"What if this were 22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control?"
A most excellent question, and one to ask from the stage of the Republican and Democratic presidential conventions later this year.
10
This is an excellent point. Do you remember what spurred Ronald Reagan and the California legislature to enact tough gun control regulations? The Black Panthers showed up in at the statehouse in Sacramento, openly carrying weapons. Not surprisingly, the NRA were all for it at the time.
9
Citizens who legally own guns and are out there Roth noticing to hide are not what scares me. What scares me are the fun owners who weren’t there - the ones hiding.
1
Thank you to the author for your comment on how a permissive interpretation of the Second Amendment chills exercise of the First. This has been weighing heavily on my mind and I would like to see it brought up more often in our discussions of gun control.
40
Stone-age mentality in the 21st Century - Modern Scientific advancement, technological advancement etc and stone-age mentality is a Very dangerous combination.
15
Remember when the Black Panthers had a pro gun carrying rally? Reagan passed gun restriction laws so fast that it took the police forces of California a substantial amount of time learn how to enforce them. He called protesters carrying rifles and shotguns seditionists and they certainly didn't have the sophisticated weapons of mass destruction that an AR-15 or an AK-47 is. Reagan recognized that such unregulated firepower was a threat to public safety in the 60's and 70's and it still is today.
20
@Tom
"Reagan recognized that such unregulated firepower was a threat to public safety in the 60's and 70's and it still is today."
What Reagan realized is that one of America's greatest fears is armed black resistance against repression.
@Tom It's not just Republicans who make up convenient political mythology. The so-called Mulford Act you reference was passed by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of the California legislature with majority support of the Democrats. Mulford was a Republican, but he easily secured Democrat co-sponsors of his bill and most Democrats fell in line.
Racist opposition to the Black Panthers, who included who high-minded thinkers like Stokely Carmichael, was a bipartisan matter. And the effort to put off racism on one party or the other is flagrantly fraudulent. Democrats and Republicans were both shamefully tainted.
Folks who don't live in gun states are quick to judge armed individuals absent any point of reference. Arizona is a gun state. And while most guns are used outside the city, Phoenix residents have plenty of experience.
I have seen my share of hunters. Without exception, those I've seen are experienced outdoorsmen, many of whom are war veterans and are equipped with maps and supplies that communicate meticulous planning. In the city, New Year's Eve is known for guns shot off in celebration. One girl was killed by a stray bullet some time ago. And many, though not all have cleaned up their act.
Most important, those who exercise the right to open carry are, in my experience, all bark and no bite. Even in Arizona those carrying guns in holsters are outliers. And they are like those with provocative bumper stickers or T-shirts. They are looking to spark an argument, period. I have never seen one even touch his gun. They love to intimidate, but pretty much all the guns are unloaded. Just because they enjoy a good spat doesn't mean they are ready to be convicted of murder.
Those on the coasts are unhinged by the window dressing. What they don't know is that our gun problem is pretty much the same as theirs. Gangs and career criminals carrying concealed Glocks make up the vast majority of determined shooters.
15
@michjas I grew up with guns. I carried one in the Marines for over a decade. We all know what the first and most important gun safety lesson - treat every gun as if it's loaded.
So when you say these open carry protestors are okay because most of their guns are unloaded, whatever you're selling, I'm not buying. The kind of person goes to "a good spat" with a firearm is not going there with good intentions - it's to intimidate those of us that know a gun's purpose is to kill.
I'm not even close to unhinged, just embarrassed someone can write this and think it's close to the truth.
68
@michjas
I would love to believe your comment that these guys are all talk, but virtually all of mass shootings are committed by guys like the ones who attended the rally.
47
@michjas The problem is that "the window dressing" can and does spark panic in public places to the point where people flee in a dangerous and uncontrolled manner. You cannot blame the people for reacting like this; mass shooters ALWAYS open carry their guns into public places in the same way that open carry people do just before the slaughter begins.
IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE and CRAZY for anyone to open carry firearms anywhere without absolute necessity. If you are camping in grizzly country, open carrying a firearm is sensible. If you are visiting the local mall or supermarket, carrying a firearm is a provocation and inciting a riot.
209
Thanks for sharing the pertinent history on gun rights Jamelle. We also note the symbolism of their demonstration being held on MLK day. This is definitely not a civil rights march in the spirit of non-violence. Instead it is a show of force and a celebration of the power of violence to change the narrative. This is not a protest against injustice, it is an attempt to intimidate those who would like to protect the country against random gun violence. Canada does not have the right to bear arms enshrined in its constitution. Canada's motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government". None of those three conditions are possible if people can roam the streets with automatic weapons.
87
"Canada does not have the right to bear arms enshrined in its constitution." Canada did not have a Constitution in name until 1867, when British Parliament passed the Constitution Act -- much later than the US Constitution, which was written for an independent country. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically tied the right to bear arms to being part of a "well-regulated militia" -- in effect, the Amendment did away with private militias and put them in control of the government. The "enshrining" you mention was not, in fact, enshrining at all. I'd say we don't need this Amendment any longer -- it's outdated. And we certainly need better gun control, after the very admirable Canadian model. But... there's no need to twist history to make that point.
8
@Charles Justice 1. I don’t believe automatic weapons were documented, 2. Dr. King supported 2A rights and I believe would have seen the peaceful protest as progress since it included many diverse cultural groups from the pictures I saw, 3. Denying me the ability of effective self defense is a fundamental injustice. 4. We probably just see it differently, folks with guns do not intimidate me - unless they are violating one of the three basic rules of firearm safety and then I become concerned.
5
My self defense is a friendly style and living in a state and town or city where gun violence is a rarity. Where I live people feel secure without weapons in their home.
3
"An armed society is a polite society." So commented one of the armed men at Richmond, missing the point made in other comments and that Mr Bouie made: an armed society is an intimidated society.
97
@John
Gun owners go on and on about guns being essential to a free state, but never talk about the ways guns are used to suppress people into submission, which was the whole intent of the rally.
35
@Susan What is even more interesting is how easily an unarmed population is suppressed into submission by an armed state. In this case, the First Amendment was not violated. The state did nothing to prevent others from counter protesting. The First Amendment is not germane to the conversation as one would be under no threat of persecution by the government for choosing to exercise his free speech.
Now, the government stopping you from protesting because you cannot be armed would be a matter of the First Amendment being suppressed.
3
Personally, I think the government of Virginia should have sent an armed force out against the protesters. Our government allows for peaceful protest, not armed intimidation. We've let these people get away with too much. Threatening our elected government with guns is beyond my limit of acceptable behavior.
1
Honestly, the idea that these protesters behaved peacefully (as many people commenting on this article have mentioned) seems to be missing the point. Of course they behaved peacefully because there was nobody there opposing their viewpoint. The issue is this: nobody was there to oppose them because it's dangerous to oppose an angry mob bearing every type of gun imaginable. OK, you can quibble with my characterization of them as a mob, but my fundamental problem with people who go around carrying weapons is that they can do whatever they want, whether they are right or wrong because nobody is going to call out someone brandishing a gun. I most definitely see that as a violation of my first amendment right.
283
Might you be missing that the folks rallying were exercising their First Amendment right of peaceful assembly? It seems hard to argue these folks were standing against free speech and free assembly were they were taking advantage of those rights. There were no reports of violence or threats to others. Whether we agree with them or not, just selectively calling folks exercising their American freedoms as in the wrong for doing so seems a dangerous pattern.
29
@JC it was not be argued that did not have the right to their first amendment, it is just being honest to know that if had been anyone, but white men, the media and authorities would have reacted differently.
76
@NYC tax payer
Assuming that anyone else would have been treated differently based on the color of his or her skin or his or her political beliefs isn't a valid argument. There were infact people of color supporting the second amendment and what they believe in. Peacefully, respectfully and without incident.
10
Yes. They were exercising their right to peaceful assembly. But they did so while heavily armed, which, as has been mentioned elsewhere, was naturally going to eliminate opposition. Here’s an idea. If you want to march for gun rights, do so unarmed. Make your arguments on the strength of your ideas. Not as a show of force. I won’t bother delving too deeply into the paranoia of these people fretting that someone is “coming for my guns.” Even under the most restrictive gun legislation proposed in this country, every man and woman would still be free to arm themselves to the hilt. They just wouldn’t be able to, you know, purchase an assault weapon without a background check. That so many see this kind of common sense idea as a trampling of their freedom is a sign of what a lunatic society we are.
61
The second amendment was rightly meant to allow citizens to be able to overthrow their own government, violently if necessary. Ofcourse it makes sense to disallow disarmament because that would lead to easy subjugation of the masses by a few powerful. However the most powerful gun owned by a government official or soldier, 2 centuries ago, was also the same as the one owned by an average citizen. So the only thing that separated the government's military strength and a citizen militia's military strength is strength in numbers of individuals. However the strongest weapon owned by the government today is a nuclear weapon!! If all of the citizens, Democrats and Republicans, gun owners and non gun owners alike came together and decided that the government deserved to be overthrown, the strongest weapon they would have at their disposal is an AR15!! A truly oppressive government does not need bans on guns. It can snuff out an uprising like that with a single explosive whose power is unmatched to anything that can be manufactured in someone's garage (such as happens in Syria, etc). So here we find ourselves - owning weapons that are woefully inadequate for a true mutiny, but far too powerful to be safely applied for personal protection and hobbies. Is it any wonder then that all we can do is turn it on each other?
19
I’m somewhat sympathetic to that argument, but I find it hard to believe that a people—even those with anti-revolutionary sentiments—would stand-by while the government was actively nuking its own citizens. Nor would neighboring nations. There is a reason the government seeks to pacify revolutionary ideas.
1
@Someone
If we all came together and decided the government needed to be overthrown, the armed forces would be split, fight among themselves, and the government would fall. We discovered in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq that powerful weapons do not lead to victory.
Universal ownership of today's personal weapons, which include mines and small antitank and antiaircraft rockets as well as sniper and assault rifles, would produce much carnage. It would make civil aviation nerve-wracking.
4
@Someone "The second amendment was rightly meant to allow citizens to be able to overthrow their own government, violently if necessary."
NO!
The second amendment was not meant to be a self-destruct device. It was meant as part of an alternative to a standing army, and to have militia men in possession of their military style weapons instead of having those weapons located in a central armory. The founders designed a representative democracy, a republic.., to allow people to vote (although in those days it was a small proportion of all the people) in order to prevent having tyrants in charge.
23
Enlightening analysis and good historical perspective. That said, I can't help but wonder if our centuries of military culture and war, with the resulting knowledge and fascination of firearms and evolved weaponry has not equally effected our cultural perspective and approval of guns. Or more simply, the more we fight, kill and achieve a level of comfort with sophisticated firearms in armed conflicts. the more we bring that as an accepted culture to our home.
9
@Jim
There is a warrior culture in our country, especially in certain regions, but our frontier culture has a much longer history.
Either way, we seem to be more resistant to becoming "sheeple" for it. We would be better off if we had stuck to the guns invented within our frontier culture and not those invented through the needs of our warrior culture.
"But that “peace” can’t be separated from intimidation; progressive groups urged members not to go to the Capitol to avoid violent confrontation with extremists. There were no counterprotests or rival demonstrations. The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First."
There is no objective evidence for that assertion.
15
@JDK Furthermore, the government did nothing to prevent anyone from exercising First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not warrant consideration until the government does anything to silence free speech or expression. The Second Amendment did not suppress the First Amendment in any way. It's a straw man argument.
@JDK
Actually, the lines you quote provide objective evidence of the assertion.
@JDK but it sure seems that way.
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted." - D.H. Lawrence, STUDIES IN CLASSIC AMERICAN LITERATURE
27
@S.R. Simon Lawrence was English.
1
You can see the look on the faces of the protesters and they match Trump. They are "sensitive to threat" as the politically correct way to say paranoid. It is unconscious, automatic "thinking" and a remnant of evolution. For some reason few people seem to recognize the root cause of why they think the way they do despite it being so simple. And since they were born this way, there is little that can be done about it besides waiting out evolutionary change, a slow process.
29
Supported by Trump who wrongly accused Virginia of trying to take guns away, the rally group were there to protest gun safety laws being considered by the Virginia General Assembly. These gun safety bills were part of the reasons the Democrats won the majority in both houses of the General Assembly. None of these bills are aimed at overthrowing the Second amendment or a gun grab by the state government.
Many of the guys at the “we need our guns and camo to feel like men” rally were agitators from other states. These same men would be the first to complain about interference from outsiders. The people at the rally form the base of the people the NRA has targeted for decades, using scare tactics and false information to ramp up the fear that these white men are an endangered group and “victims” of the growing ethnic and racial diversity of the United States.
52
@Doris2001 Virginia absolutely is trying to take guns away. Several of the proposed bills would do exactly that.
4
@Doris2001 these aren't "gun safety" laws. I took gun safety as part of my hunters education course. You can at least be truthful and call it what it is, ban and confiscation, and stop using Orwellian double speak.
As well they should. Assault rifles have no place in the hands of the citizenry in a civilized society. Get over it.
1
I shot a lot of guns in the Army. In fact, I was a weapons specialist and shot every gun in the inventory c. 1970. Pretty boring to be honest.
One thing I learned in those dark years, and you don't have to be a Freudian to understand this fact, is middle-aged men walking around with AR-15s strapped to their chests could care less about the Second Amendment (have they read the part about militias?).
In the Army we used to sleep with our weapons in our beds--yes, quite twisted--but the point was that a gun is, for most men, a sexual object.
The notion that "the government is coming for our guns" in a country where there are more guns than people, where 39,000 people die from gun-related deaths, where 60% of gun deaths are suicides and far too many of those by troubled young people (what's the NRA position on this?), makes me think that there's something at work her aside from concern about "gun rights."
I will let you finish the thought.
212
I am a gun owner. Handguns only. I enjoy shooting at targets at my local range, as well as the mechanical elegance of certain guns. I don't feel particularly macho doing this, and don't feel the need to CC in my peaceful suburban community. When I see what is for sale in gun shops, for 'cash and carry', ie, scores of AR 15 clones with 30 round magazines and Vortex precision sights, I have to ask, what is the threat these weapons have to defend against? I'll bet most of the heavily armed demonstrators, aging, paunchy white men like myself, live in relatively safe communities, in small towns or the burbs like myself. You do have to ask about the psychological motivation for owning a military grade weapon like an AR 15 or equivalent.
134
@larry Your point is well taken and I would add that among the hundreds of people that own an AR 15 just because of their own collector psychology, there is going to be the one who owns it just because of a different psychology, one of violence and extermination. Gun control should be enabled to catch that one, and if that means limiting the collectors, then let it be.
46
@larry I'm with you. I owned guns until my children were born--sold them and bought a vintage Martin guitar. I have nothing--nothing--against gun owners--I live in a very gun friendly state and everyone of my relatives is a shooter. What I have no patience for is the combination of assault weapons, paranoia, and the pretense of some threat to gun ownership in a country where we have guns galore but no health care and, frankly, no concern for the veterans who sleep on the streets. Let's get our priorities straight shall we?
135
In the 1960's, when the Black Panthers armed themselves, and were shown on the news in the California state capital, the NRA came out in support of gun control. This column is spot on.
359
Ronald Reagan pushed the gun control legislation through the California state government. Also, remember that black man who was shot by a policeman even though he had a concealed weapons permit and explained to the officer on camera that he had a gun? if that guy had been white there would have been NRA outrage. Not a peep from them on that one.
17
While the white male might be the iconic gun owner that everyone thinks of, there are three other groups that deserve to come to mind when you think of gun ownership in America:
1. Single women who own a gun to protect themselves against men.
2. Black men and women in rough inner city neighborhoods who own a gun to protect their families from rampant gang violence.
3. Gang members and criminals who illegally own guns and inflict violence on society.
Why white men seem to have more motivation and courage to speak out for gun rights versus groups 1 and 2, I don’t know. Maybe it’s part of the history you describe. Maybe those groups don’t feel as comfortable publicly airing their gun views. But don’t assume that just because they are not at rallies that they also don’t value their gun rights.
34
Groups 1 and 2 don’t “value their gun rights”. They’re clinging to what little hope they have to self protection in light of the over abundance of weapons on the streets and everywhere else in America. Don’t confuse desperation to protect oneself with why the protection is needed in the first place.
8
@SG1 Oh come on. How many women that own a gun for self protection are actually doing it because they think someone's going to pull out a six shooter on them to steal a purse? It's driven by hysteria over the non-existent "rape epidemic," even as we have historically low rates of rape (last I checked, about 7.2 per 1000 women in the early 2010s as per BJS statistics). And how many guys are actually walking on the streets, ready to pull out a gun to rape a woman? That's not how most rapes occur, unless you're watching a gangster film.
The people of color one I'll give you, but even then, most weapons on the streets in inner city areas are illegal. You're looking at blue cities and states with very strict gun laws having high rates of illegal gun ownership due to gang violence and community issues in these locales. Owning a gun is purely a reaction to this, and even then, not exceedingly common. And even that one has grey areas where you have black power groups endorsing gun ownership as a way to prevent the tyranny of a "racist" government, in a weird perversion of what many conservatives say about personal liberty in the guns debate.
Mr Bouie claims “we know the answer” to what would happen if the rally had been “22,000 black nationalists, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control,” but he doesn’t convince.
Such a rally would be very interesting to see, and I don’t think we’d necessarily see history repeat itself.
We’d either get a warm welcome from the right for the additional support, or we’d quickly see some changes in heart from Republicans who decide that some gun control legislation might make sense after all.
10
The militia idea was a colonial idea, a practical concept prior to the creation of a US standing army and navy. State-run National Guards also provide for the protection of the people. Any other privately formed militia should be declared illegal. The second amendment is an outmoded, outdated and antiquated concept that belongs in the dust bin of history.
126
@Victor Blue Quite wrong. Colonial era militias usually *elected their own officers.* Rather different from the US military or the National Guard. The whole idea of a standing army was not really accepted as a permanent phenomenon in America until WWII. Yes, they had a lot to do with white domination, keep the slaves and Indians in line. BTW, one of the reasons given for the infamous Dred Scott decision was that, as Justice Taney put it, if blacks were citizens then they would have the right to own guns! So claiming that the Second Amendment isn't about individual gun ownership is simply wrong. What's more, abstract out the the original American sin of white supremacy, and the fact is that the Black Panther Party's patrols on police (police in America weren't invented until the 1830s BTW, didn't exist before that, just volunteer community patrols), have more continuity with the spirit of '76 than does the National Guard. And, as Kent State demonstrated, they were better disciplined too.
1
@Victor Blue it's no more outmoded that the first.
You don't punish and disarm 330 million good people, for the actions of a very few.
The onus is on the People.
Too often, someone close to the perpetrator knows something is wrong, and they notify no one. Sometimes people just don't execute policies that are already in place (like psychologists not reporting to background check facilities, or school personnel buzzing someone into the building who has been banned...both happened in the Parkland school shooting).
These acts could be easy to stop, IF the people that know the perpetrators, or know of them, would act. Contact someone if you think an individual is on the brink.
This is all on WE THE PEOPLE showing some guts and initiative.
The second amendment exists in our Constitution so that
The People can protect themselves from abuse, especially from a corrupt or oppressive government.
It is the only reason the second amendment is there, not for hunting and target shooting...not for fun.
Banning guns is not the answer. It's an old saying and absolutely true:
Guns don't kill, people do.
16
@Raz The Virginia legislature has not set out to ban guns. They proposed three modest laws to regulate gun ownership. We have lots of regulations about automobiles and pharmaceuticals, but no one is proposing banning either. Why have the 2nd amendment people gone berserk over this and cut off any reasonable discussion about what is needed to keep America safe? There is a lot more going on here than what is on the surface.
121
@Glenn Ruga
From the Southwest Times ( a Virginia Paper):
Senate Bill 16 would make it illegal to sell or even possess of a number of firearms that are currently legal. Those in violation of this proposed law would be guilty of a felony.
SB 16 would make any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed capacity of more than 10 rounds illegal. In addition, the possession of any center fire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has a thumbhole stock, pistol grip or a second hand grip or a threaded barrel would also automatically become a felony.
Any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds will also be illegal to own if this bill passes. If the pistol has the ability to accept a detachable magazine other restrictions apply, which include banning threaded barrels and prohibiting pistols weighing 50 ounces or more.
Shotguns with the ability to accept detachable magazines or having a fixed capacity of over seven rounds would also become illegal to own.
As a result, every rifle with the common AR-15 design and many pistols and shotguns that are currently in common use for personal defense and target shooting would be banned. Since they would be illegal to own, they would have to be either surrendered or seized by law enforcement authorities.
9
@Raz
Thank you for posting this. This is why 22,000 people turned out in support of they're rights and the 2nd amendment.
4
I find the author's perspective very enlightening. It's a perspective I haven't thought about. To me comon sense dictates that gun ownership should be regulated. I don't believe it to be an absolute and after reading this opinion piece I understand that there are definitely many views that aren't taken into consideration in this debate. Historically speaking, as does the author in the first part of the essay, the origin of gun ownership seems to be more in tune with population control rather than over intrusive or abusive government.
34
Several points I'd like to make in addition to JB:
1) Antifa had a limited presence.
2) Leftist gun organizations (Armed Equality, Pink Pistols, the SRA, Redneck Revolt, The Liberal Gun Organization, and The Liberal Gun Club) deliberately stayed away.
3) Actually near the Capitol, fences and metal detectors were installed and no weapons allowed.
Observations:
1) AR-15s and the much-talked about sniper rifle would have been useless in a riot.
2) LE did their job and arrested 6 neo-nazis planning violence.
3) All of these characters, armed like the "summer soldiers" they are, looked, frankly, more ridiculous, than threatening.
4) By looking like their were on the brink of violent insurrection, they did their cause more harm than good.
5) 22,000 is pretty big for a small city demonstration, but it was actually a relatively small crowd. In the Vietnam days, a demonstration wasn't considered a success if it had less than 100,000.
6) Rather than recognize that gun control laws are intended to reduce gun violence, they claimed it was "tyranny"--perhaps they need a better look at Trump for a nascent tyrant.
7) I am not aware of ONE speech calling for an alternative to stopping gun violence that does NOT call for gun control. Nor did they call for better studies of the causes and prevention of gun violence.
8) While there were Black protestors, JB's assertion a la Reagan is correct.
69
I find it just disturbing that the gun rights folks have to come to a demonstration with guns. If they are truly interested in protecting their rights then talk to other people with out the gun in hand or hanging on your neck or both. The fact that they stand with their guns in their hands is simply a tactic of intimidation so why when they claim to be on a peaceful march do they act in an intimidating manner. I guess if I want to talk to one of them I have to carry a gun to make them understand I mean business? Is that what they call civil discourse? I think not. We all know what they want, unfettered access to guns. Perhaps they need to know that not all of us see a gun as the answer to everything. I personally do not believe that the Constitutional amendment, #2, is absolute. But to have any sort of conversations about it they need to leave their guns home and come and talk with out intimidating anyone with their weapons.
165
As soon as we got the vote slap high taxes and high insurance mandates on guns.
What a bunch.
1
@really fishy lady - Having been raised by someone in that group, I can say many "2nd Amendment People" see their guns as appendages. No exaggeration, they view their weapons as no less a part of themselves than any other body part. There would be no thought of leaving it behind unless forced to.
@really fishy lady they came for their reasons.
I find it disturbing that antifa shows up to rallies and beats down innocent people who don’t agree with them.
The symbolism here is, we have guns and if you take them remember what side of the gun you’ll be on. The sheriff already stated he wouldn’t enforce any gun control laws, because he swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Your leftist love giving the government all kinds of control but cry when the control isn’t something you agree with.
Your “personal beliefs” do not matter. Facts matter.
1
Mr. Bouie,
Great article with great observations.
For broader context, Pittsburgh's incomparable "Teenie" Harris archives may reveal a small window in our Nation's history when it was more normalized for African Americans to be able to have firearms.
https://collection.cmoa.org/?dir=desc&page=1&perPage=10&q=guns&sort=relevance&withImage=0
Now, the window reflected by Mr. Harris's photos was small: above the Mason-Dixon line, after WWII but before the 1960's -- and largely in the context of hunting.
Why did the window close? Is it that as baby boomers aged into the workforce at a time of a slowing U.S. economy, white racism escalated exponentially to erode gains made by African Americans during WWII and afterward? That's my guess.
This country still has a lot to do to atone for its past -- but I'm proud of the Pittsburgh that produced Mr. Harris, The Courier and August Wilson (as a kid I spent countless hours in the Oakland Library where Mr. Wilson worked and wrote his plays) and it saddens me greatly that Pittsbugh's African American population is declining.
12
@Sam Thank you so much for his link! As a lifelong rural Pennsylvanian I recognize the aesthetic of these images immediately. When I grew up, guns represented the ability of poor folks to escape the galling humiliation and pain of hunger. Guns represented the tool that, with some wile and skill, could put a good meal on the table for your family. And you better believe that this form of “subversive subsistence” was practiced by all of my coal miner neighbors - African-, Irish- and Polish- Americans alike!
28
22000? This is nothing compared to the 1995 Million Man March, which had an attendance at least 20x higher. The US has a population well in excess of 300 million.
12
@Eilene : it's sizable but not overwhelmingly so.
The Women's March 3 years ago (does everybody now have amnesia? THREE YEARS!) had about ONE MILLION women protesting the Trump Inauguration.
Nobody was claiming they were taking away the rights of those who didn't agree with them.
7
It is only right for people to gather and/or protest in peace and unmolested by those holding opposing views. No need to get in somebody’s face. And no, being civil in this manner doesn’t infringe on your 1st amendment rights.
18
After reading this, I looked at the CDC 2017 death statistics, which break down deaths by cause, age, gender and race (basically white/black/Hispanic with some caveats about reporting consistency). What leaps out is that young white males are 6-9 times more likely to die from suicide than from homicide, while those ratios are reversed for young black males. If self-preservation were involved, both groups should be doing their darnedest for gun control (whites because guns are far and away the most effective tool for suicide; blacks because they're more likely to be victims).
While hardly pro-gun (I'm a pacifist Quaker who has had the opportunity to look down a barrel during a hold-up), I believe that this subject is prone to suffering from more heat than light, and that polarization is being fanned by interests that benefit from our discord.
Do we need hundreds of millions of guns in this country? Obviously not. But that's a symptom, not a cause. To proceed with an accurate diagnosis, the first question to any fervent gun owner needs to be "What are you so afraid of, and why?" Because we're then immersed in emotion, the responses are likely to be illogical. Resolving that situation will take some doing.
121
@Tad La Fountain -Thank you. So agree. It's strange that these people seem to feel threatened, yet they are the ones making outrageous claims and both veiled and open threats.
6
@Tad La Fountain
They're not afraid of anything. They're standing up for their 2nd amendment rights.
Lame attempt to belittle.
1
While focused on gun rights, the article makes me question the stance of originalists. When people argue that the laws should be interpreted according to the intents of the authors or the people living at the time of ratification, they often play down the rather dubious reason for many of them.
19
@David McNeilly It appears compelling to me that the states did not want the federal government to be able to ban firearms (at least of the era) so they could arm their own law enforcement and militia -to enforce their state laws. Otherwise being unable to enforce laws means a state sovereignty would not mean much.
3
@David McNeilly
We simply insist that if you want to change the law, you must actually change the law. You must gather a majority in the legislature or pass a constitutional amendment.
You ought not simply decide that the law means something different today than it meant for the first 200 years of its existence because you find the new meaning convenient or because you find the politicians who passed it morally objectionable or because you lack the votes to change it properly. That way lies madness.
1
Yes, gun ownership was required in 1638 and in 1652. There was no local paid police force. No state troopers. The professional military was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, a good six weeks sail away during the months when sailing was a possibility. There were armed French to the north, a few days march away from many New England towns. Armed Spanish in the Caribbean, and Native Americans, some hostile, others allies, everywhere in between. And the English colonists were white. Correct. To state that the sole purpose of being armed during the colonial period, particularly the very early colonial period, was only to seize territory and put down slave insurrections is patently false. Sudden raids by bands of French and Indians was foremost in the minds of the early English settlers. Perhaps an example of revisionist history here.
Such statements need to be avoided if your column is to be accepted as credible.
To my knowledge there are no laws in this country that prohibit gun ownership or the right to assemble with their guns directed at any particular race or political position. The assumption that an organized gathering or protest by 22,000 armed African Americans who behaved peacefully would have been handled any differently is only that, an assumption.
27
@CC there are no laws banning black men from owning guns but police killed Philando Castile for owning a gun and Tamir Rice and John Crawford III for holding toy guns and the officers in question were not convicted. If the state can execute you for exercising a legal right it seems that is a right in name only.
6
@CC The last paragrapgh needed a response. The Black Panthers were armed until Reagan and the California legislature changed the laws to ban such "behavior"by African Americans. Recently a AA man was killed exercising his rights to bare arms. A black man with a toy gun was Murdered in a Walmart. I don't know why i waste my time explaining this to people who knows better, but pretend to be ignorant of our shared history.
3
@CC It is a pretty good assumption. Would you like to spear-head an experiment with me and invite 22,000 black men and women to peaceable organize with their guns and ammo? Heck let's plan on 100,000 and see how it goes.
I'm looking at a group of middle-aged and maybe a few of Social Security age with prominent bellies, facial hair and in some (not all) of them, a penchant for conspiracy theories. How these persons represent any race or group other than their individual personality is a product not of fact or truth but your identity politics on overdrive.
I take umbrage at the suggestion that this bunch represent me or that I must share in whatever inherent privileges they enjoy. Open carry has more to do with craven politicians (overwhelmingly Republican) in the pocket, and sometimes in the pay of the gun lobby.
50
@Unworthy Servant
The point is not that these men represent any other men; the point is that our society privileged a class of men, who were as a point of fact white men, from the beginning of our nation's founding to hold arms, and that any member of this particular group--white men--are normalized in terms of gun ownership. Other groups are not.
60
@Unworthy Servant Actually, it looks to me like open carry is more about displaying male insecurities.
2
We have an economic free ridership problem here. 30% of U.S. adults own guns, but societal costs of gun ownership are borne by the entire population. I believe gun owners should be required to buy liability insurance for each and every firearm they own. Let insurance companies calculate risk and charge gun owners accordingly.
590
This is a good idea to start. If only we could portray it in a way that would gain traction.
34
@Mr. Jones And you would see most firearm owners charged a low, reasonable rate and those in inner city communities would be charged exorbitantly, effectively denying their 2A rights and rights to self-defense. What a disparate impact such a policy would have on communities of color.
9
@Aaron Under the “Dram shop” laws an establishment serving alcohol can be liable for the actions of an individual they served who was implicated in causing harm.
In contrast, Gun manufacturers are shielded from any liability thanks to the financial influence of the US Congress by the NRA.
Only the Gun industry has found it necessary to seek protection under the law for the damage caused by their product.
False equivalence.
43
Perhaps one way to defang or at least temper armed demonstrations of this sort would be for very large numbers of black and brown men and women to show up, locked and loaded just like the white men, carrying banners and wearing patches with whatever nonviolent but assertive messages they prefer. They might be welcomed by some white men and not by others, but they couldn't be excluded, they would not have to support the extreme positions taken by the movement's leaders, and their presence would likely change the tenor of the affair. Would the movement leaders be more or less likely to call for these armed demonstrations if they knew they would draw a highly diverse crowd?
13
@KAN Even more likely, I expect. There were plenty of black Virginians at the rally, representing the same viewpoint as everyone else. Race wasn't the point, whatsoever. Defending the Constitution was. The media in particular and the left in general seem frustrated that the event was entirely calm, orderly, law-abiding and peaceful, and so - as Mr. Bouie does here - seek to cast any sinister light they can contrive upon it. Racial permutations are the easiest and most facile to concoct. As for the "extreme" positions of the movement's leaders, those positions were merely to retain, unchanged, the current legal framework in Virginia, 2020. Hardly extreme.
22
@KAN one problem with this idea is that it would play into the hands of the NRA and gun manufacturers - resulting in the sale of more guns. The second problem is exactly what Mr. Bouie implies, that such diverse gun owners would NOT be welcome. It’s not a safe experiment if there is a likelihood that it would devolve into violence and gunfire.
6
Protests are dangerous enough, adding guns is a recipe for disaster. You have crowds of people with differing strongly opinions, high emotional. Then allow people to carry various firearms. Sooner or later there will be a tragedy if this is allowed to continue.
This brings up some history. After the Civil War most of the Army was disbanded. What was left was barely enough to control the borders and maintain peace. There were four Black regiments, the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 24th and 25th Infantry. They were really good. They were stationed in the west, fighting in the Indian Wars, against Mexican bandits, fighting the great fires of 1910, maintaining the national parks ... in the war against Spain they distinguished themselves at Las Guasimas, El Caney San Juan Hill. Currier and Ives printed posters celebrating their exploits which could be seen in the best "colored" homes and in some white ones as well.
As long as the Buffalo Soldiers were out of sight on the frontier everything was cool. When they started showing what they could do and making national news, when the Army command started moving them through or into Jim Crow land, there was a real uproar.
Within 10 years the Army produced a study concluding that African Americans were unfit for combat duty. By the time the US entered the Great War, there was no thought of assigning Black men to combat units. They mostly went into labor battalions. One exception was the 15th New York volunteers AKA the Harlem Hellfighters. They were already organized so they were sent to France as a unit and attached to the French Army. They wore French uniforms, carried French rifles, and astounded the French with their courage and fury in battle.
110
Don't forget the lurking fear of another Nat Turner or John Brown.
19
@Nick Wheeler
There should be even more fear about recreating the conditions that sparked those uprisings.
11
@N. Smith
I know Joe Biden keeps talking about putting folks back in chains, but you're not silly enough to believe him are you?
Turner and Brown were fighting against slavery which no one is ever going to bring back to the States.
It's a reality. Black males commit the vast majority of gun homicides in the US. Their victims are mostly other Black males.
1
Somehow this reminds of some folks years back who wanted to demonstrate individually for "open carry" in the East Bay. They did this in some of the "nicer" areas with little or no reaction in coffee shops and other genteel establishments.
I wondered what they would have found had they ventured out in some of the less refined neighborhoods brandishing their right-to-bear-openly arms. Guess they were smart enough not to conduct a too rigorous test of gun owner rights.
8
Like many reasonable ideas in our laws, both the origin story and some of the unintended consequences of gun rights are a mix of grim and horrifying.
The problem with this is that rather thsn a sober analysis of the past, many and perhaps a critical mass of people resort to a mix of mythology or bad faith arguments, preventing both meaningful legislation and the social cohesion that could follow a stable compromise.
5
@Alan
The problem is that your side of the debate is untrustworthy.
In Canada, in New Zealand, in England, and in Australia, "common sense," "reasonable" gun control measures piled inexorably on top of each other until private gun ownership had been eradicated. Every step of the way people who worried that guns were being banned by inches were derided as paranoid, but the end result was exactly that, and not by accident. Canada in particular promised that their gun registry would not be used for confiscation, then promptly broke that promise. It is now almost impossible for a private citizen to own a pistol in Canada.
When senior Democratic politicians speak candidly, they speak of gun owners with contempt, and they speak of Canada's gun control regime with admiration.
So no thank you. No "common sense" bans on cosmetic features, no "sensible" restrictions on ammo, no "popular" universal gun registries.
Keep your camel's nose out of my tent.
4
@Heedless All those countries have a higher standard of living and do better on the happiness index. Why do we have to suffer just because you need something long and can shoot to compensate for for something that is mistaken for a dead fly and does not shoot?
18
@Trumpette You can't possibly be suggesting the differences in happiness index and standard of living is due to gun control laws?
You do know that since the 1990s, the US has seen a larger drop in murder rates than any of those countries while seeing a dramatic increase in firearms ownership?
What if this were 22,000 women, similarly armed, similarly enraged at the prospect of gun control?
Oh right, most women don't own guns. And even those that do support common-sense gun control laws.
34
"The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First." I've been saying this for years - public carrying of guns infringes First Amendment rights.
250
@Barbara And by that logic, calling for gun control is the First effectively infringing the Second.
5
@JDK the second amendment specifically states a 'well-regulated' militia. Well-regulated IS gun control.
16
@Kate
Well regulated is a measure of quality, not a measure of government . If you want a properly functioning militia, the people need to be able to keep and bear arms.
To put it in context of the times, the founders had just fought, and won, a civil war. This war against their own government was triggered when the government came to confiscate weapons and ammunition. It isn't logical to assume they would would write government regulation of arms into the new country's constitution.
1
Assault weapons are called just that for a reason. Assault weapons are NOT called defense weapons or protection weapons.
It should be remembered that Ronald Reagan fully supported The Brady Bill* and signed a 15 day waiting period for hand gun purchases while CA governor.
As the late judge and conservative legalist Robert Bork said of the Second Amendment:
(1989) “(It) guarantees the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.”
(1991): “The National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people’s right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that’s not the original understanding.”
(1997): “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”
65
@HapinOregon
Heller vs DC (and one of those ''activist judges'' that the right wing likes to go on about) opened the floodgates on this. An important piece of the timeline that is often ignored.
7
@HapinOregon "Assault weapon" is a made up term to describe commonly owned firearms that have certain cosmetic and ergonomic features. The definition is completely arbitrary.
4
What exactly do you think an assault weapon is?
1
This was not about the fear of taking away hunting guns or guns to protect families and property. It was a showcase of the fear of further marginalization. It was the fear of more exposure of bad personal choices. It was the fear that those that don't look like, or sound like, or worship like oneself will continue to advance. It was the fear that being white is slowly, to some it may seem quickly, diminishing as a right to succeed.
33
Looking at the photo at top of the story is like viewing a house painted in monochromatic white. It looks like just what it is - a collection of armed men clutching their AR-15’s looking for a fight that never existed.
Many of these men want us to believe they are defending their Second Amendment rights from a government intent on taking their guns away. They tell us they are willingly to fight to the death against such overreach.
How sad is it that class warfare is really no different than before the Civil War - except it’s under the false rubric of conspiracy theories.
31
@Robert
We already have a government that is not responsive to the needs of its citizens. Been that way for a long time. The right to bear arms did nothing at all to stop this.
9
@Robert I see a bunch of paunchy middle-aged men who have seen all of of the Rambo movies, and are clinging to their armaments to slow their slide into impotence.
The arms that are being referenced in the second amendment ARE military weapons.
The second amendment exists in our Constitution so that The People can protect themselves from abuse, especially from a corrupt or oppressive government.
It is the only reason the second amendment is there, not for hunting and target shooting...not for fun.
Before you tell me the people in this country could not stand up to our military, consider these facts:
US Population: 330 million
Guns in the hands of private citizens: about 330 million
Active duty military: <1.4 million
U.S. land area: about 3.8 million square miles
To control a country, not defeat an opposing military force, you need people on the ground. Our military just isn't big enough to defeat the rest of the country, if it came to that.
If there ever was revolt against the government, you have to figure that a lot of military personnel would desert and fight with the people.
Remember, our military could not subdue Afghanistan, Iraq, or Viet Nam. We didn't try Japan's home islands. We dropped the bomb instead.
There are no such things as inalienable rights in this world, except within the context of our Constitution, and even those aren't real. You show me an "inalienable" right, and I'll show you a right that can be taken away.
The only rights that really exist are those that are given by others, and those that you take and defend for yourself.
As for the illegitimate use of firearms, that is a societal problem.
27
Guns owned by private citizens are in large part owned by members and former members of the military. The military still would have won on the main islands of Japan. We did not “win” any other wars because we decided total war is not the answer anymore since weapons technology advanced and we as a nation were tired of killing innocent civilians following WW2. I’m blown away by this comment.
I also agree with some controls on gun sales but the audacity to attack the military and American history like that was too much for me. People may not agree with what leaders sent them to do, but those people are just doing their jobs and it’s something that many others would not do.
2
@Raz I suspect the percentage of our population of 330 million paranoid enough to imagine the need to take up arms against our government is exceedingly small. The rest of us certainly are not counting on the paranoid few to protect us against such a sinister government. We are, however, only a few more mass murders and a couple of election cycles away from asserting our right to be free of guns altogether. We cannot tolerate this devastating fetish any longer.
1
@Raz
Our military can totally subdue Vietnam and despite what you may think we are basically subduing Afghanistan. We only lost 17 soldiers there last year. Better run up the white flag!
America is running a global empire. In that case its not worth it to spend what it takes to subdue Vietnam if it means losing Germany to the USSR and Japan to the Chinese.
Thats not the same in the USA. This is our home. Remember the Civil War. Yea. Thats what I thought.
I’m not so sure it’s that easy to situate this movement in history. I grew up in the south. My father was a hunter & had quite a large rifle & shotgun collection. He was more cautious in handling & storing them than he would have been in storing narcotics, or explosives. If anyone had gone out in public in the center of a city bearing guns or assault weapons, they would have been arrested for disturbing the peace. Everyone, across the political spectrum, would have considered them disturbed. Of course the NRA was a gun safety organization at that time. It had never occurred to anyone that the 2nd amendment allowed unrestricted ownership of weapons for individual use. The gun culture we see today was dreamed up in the fantasies of right-wing media blowhards & weapons sellers, and grafted onto a history it has nothing to do with.
387
Perfect!
1
What this tells you is there are 22,000 very scared men are misguided in their belief that owning a weapon protects you from death. The only thing that can protect you from death, is not arming yourself for a war, but by using clear thinking and judgment.
There needs to be more dialogue to remove the fear, of course removing the wizard Trump from office would be helpful as a start.
39
@Jane The two of us are in our respective homes. Bad guys break in and try to attack our families. I have a gun and you don't. Whose family is more likely to die?
We're listening to House Impeachment Managers tell us the Constitution is sacred. The demonstrators were apparently demonstrating in favor of that sacredness. They (Impeachment managers) are quoting the Founding Fathers, so Don't Tread on Me certainly sounds reasonable.
Peaceful assembly is part of that sacred guarantee.
Get over it.
13
@Jp But their peaceful assembly threatens my safety. How can I peacefully assemble with others in the same environment without feeling I might be risking my life (or at least feeling intimidated to speak my mind)?
"The Second Amendment had effectively limited the First." I've been saying this for years - public carrying of guns infringes First Amendment rights.
90
@Jp
Absolutely agree. The point being made, however, is that if such armed assembly were to consist of 22,000 black dudes, things would be very different. White makes right, as it has been said.
28
@Jp No one has asserted they didn't have the right to assemble and that isn't what this article is about.
11
And, had Antifas, an organization with a history of violently opposing and denying others the right of free speech, appeared and started a riot, the author would said the gun advocates were to blame.
The left has an intense desire to limit any speech which it finds offensive. Despite the Founders being flawed products of their times, they recognized that unpopular speech was entitled to constitutional protection. An idea that many self described liberals don’t seem to grasp.
27
@Tim According to another poster, Antifa participated in the rally. Apparently they are another organization who deserve kudos for acting in a law abiding fashion. Antifa is after all anti-fascist, that's what the acronym stand for, and the actual neo-Nazis, except for a small band quickly arrested, stayed home. I guess they didn't want to participate in a march that was at least billed as a pro Martin Luther King march (whether it was or not). Basically, this march was a Trumpista maneuver, with a major slogan according to NYT coverage being "the man in the sheet wants to take away your guns," referring to the controversy over the Democratic governor of Virginia's infamous yearbook picture last year.
@Tim Antifa is a fantasy of Fox News and the rest of the conspiracy minded right. Antifa barely exists beyond the city limits of Berkeley or Portland, OR, but in right wing media they are the liberal army defying every cause the right supports. Your comment lost any hope of validity at the mere suggestion of Antifa. Game over. Thanks for playing.
1
The demonstrators speak the language of defense — we need these guns to protect ourselves. Yet they know full well that many people tremble in fear at the sight of someone in military style costume with a lethal weapon front and center, ready for bloodshed at a moment’s notice. Is this fear just the foolish reaction of the overly sensitive, or is it in fact the precise point of this elaborate display behavior? Is this really about protection and defense, or an exhibition of power, latent with an unspoken threat?
50
Make it extremely difficult for anyone to own a gun, as is done in most civilized countries, and the issue of gun ownership and race falls by the wayside. People will also be safer and less paranoid as collateral benefits. Could it ever be worth a try?
51
@Blue Moon : Have you been following events related to gun legislation? Did you read this column?
This demonstration was a response to very modest proposals to improve gun safety, which is far less intrusive than saying "We're going to make it tough for you to buy guns." So-called gun-enthusiasts -- or "gun nuts," in the parlance of civilized human beings -- have already promised blood in the streets if laws are passed limiting their access to guns.
So how, exactly, is the US supposed to "make it extremely difficult for anyone to own a gun"? Of *course* that's what we should be doing -- but the NRA and the gun nuts have made clear that their trigger-fingers are ready.
It is a massively sick situation.
2
@DW
Just because the resolution to a problem is difficult does not mean that we should stop fighting for it. We cannot let protesters like these continue to intimidate us.
3
@Blue Moon And race? Sorry, but we white Europeans are still bigoted with or without guns. If you look at our ancestors back in the home land, they're still intolerant today without guns.
I'm retired law enforcement who let his pistol license lapse and had handguns vouchered for safekeeping. I feel a lot safer now.
102
I think American governments have allowed the gun ownership issue to fester for too long. It’s an us against them issue now and I fear that every inch made to remove unnecessary guns from the community is going to be so bitterly fought that it will end in violence.
You need to find another way other than the heavy hand of government regulation. What that way is I don’t know but if you can send a probe to Mars then you can make this happen.
16
@Michael
Your own nation needed the government to intercede.
Nothing will happen voluntarily. Its why you can't think of a non governmental way to do it.
When do groups with special power over other groups give up their power voluntarily? The emancipation of our slaves was actually a very unlikely event when the fake abolitionist Lincoln was nominated- the true abolitionists that wanted slaves not only emancipated but given full citizen status represented the extreme left wing of American politics in their time. Outside of New England their viewpoints were widely despised- they wold be more likely to be killed by mobs than elected to public office.
Most white men who opposed slavery most often did so because slaves were a threat to their own employment. Northern immigrants especially didn't want plantation owners gaining control of new territories because they weren't hiring.
What these men didn't want was for the slaves to be emancipated and enter their neighborhoods as competitors for jobs, Their wish was for them to stay in southern plantations as slaves or be shipped back to Africa.
Lincoln promised them the latter and became our president. What was in his heart on the matter is unknowable but he never publicly supported citizenship for freed slaves- that would have been political suicide.
I was a good student that graduated from high school without any awareness of these fundamental facts.
No wonder white Americans are often so easily manipulated by demagogues, most of us don't really know our history.
71
@alan haigh said "I was a good student that graduated from high school without any awareness of these fundamental facts."
Except that this is not a fact; I have never read a sentence that equated fear of job loss with fear of emancipation. And yes, I've read and am reading a lot of history from the era 1860 on. You make some other interesting points, but this one is bosh.
9
@JGS James McPherson won a Pulitzer prize for his book Battle Cry of Freedom in which this historical fact is amply explained. White, low skill workers wanted new territories to need their labor. Plantation owners didn't need them.
I suggest you read the history preceding 1860 and this book is as good as it gets in describing the politics and sociology that led to the Civil War.
Later, the immigrants flooding into this country after the Civil War were often racist out of having to compete with blacks for jobs and in the south, after the CW, resources were scarce and the black population was high, further inflaming white supremacism there. Part of segregation was making sure government jobs went only to whites.
As Jim Crow became a terrorist force in the early part of this century, blacks migrating north escaping the violence and seeking work also inflamed the same racism among those whites competing for jobs in factories and elsewhere.
It is no accident that the people with the most generous racial attitudes tend to be the ones with the least to fear or lose.
18
@alan haigh
"No wonder white Americans are often so easily manipulated by demagogues, most of us don't really know our history."
We want to think of ourselves as good people with heroes in our past. Perhaps many of us choose to ignore our history because it is actually too painful to think about. Or simply too inconvenient for our plans.
3
Thought provoking and spot on. What is it with white men and guns? Never really grew up? Our nation's highly trained military and professional law enforcement are supremely qualified to protect the citizens of our country. The need for a standing militia is generations in the past. Only gun manufacturers benefit from our current laws.
264
@Viatcheslav I Sobol States with more lax gun laws and more guns have higher rates of gun violence.
18
@Tim Thanks for the chuckles. But really, if you're expecting the cops or the military to protect you, good luck. By the time you call for help, it's usually too late. And unless you live in a wealthy community, don't be surprised if they they don't exactly give you the "help" you were hoping for.
4
@Tim We still have state militias, the National Guard, that can and have been called to quell violence.
7
Well said, Mr. Bouie! To extend your argument and analysis, can you imagine African-Americans and other groups protesting the lack of diversity among the 22,000 odd, and I do mean odd, white supremacists and militia groups represented in Richmond? Conversely, it is equally difficult to conjure many, if any, of the 22,000 there demanding that their members strive to work themselves for a more multicultural assemblage in the future. Of course, my perspective comes from someone who has led a very happy 70-plus-year-life without so much as having ever touched, owned or fired a gun, so, what do I know?
67
Not to gainsay any of the comments in this article, it might still be worth noting that the words "right to bear arms" have their origins in English history just before the 1688 Declaration of Rights, which words were installed to insure Protestants the right to self-defense against Catholics that had been privileged by James II. The words also appear in the first Pennsylvania constitution specifically for self-defense. I am sure the author knows that blacks in the south during Jim Crow who were farmers were armed to the teeth, and largely invulnerable; the major violence was visited upon blacks who worked for whites and could not afford to protect themselves. I say this not to defend those marching in Richmond; they represent neolithic man. Rather I think it worth respecting that their march was peaceful, that they have a point of view that must be considered, and the problem of gun control is not likely to be moved along by declaring guns to be instrumental in previous epochs of violence to races. The use of violence for a cause is too universal to ascribe its use just to those causes we abhor. Religious terrorism killed more than 7.5 million people in the Thirty Years War, all of them white. The answer, if there is one, seems to me to rest in what I take Bayard Rustin's resting words on the subject, in the actual mixing of our races together, the only circumstances under which humanity overcomes all else.
Kim Maxwell (Quaker by background, pacifist by disposition)
30
An interesting post, most of which I heartily agree with. The problem is with ignoring how different it would have been if there were any counter-protests, no matter how peaceful. The element marching, as stated in the article, would not tolerate others expressing their views. The point about the 2nd Amendment superseding the 1st is well taken.
21
@Rick Papin How do you know a counter protest was not possible?
Citizens who carry guns also like to think they are peaceful and responsible, and claiming otherwise justifies prejudice.
1
@Kim Maxwell surely you jest. A demonstration by 22,000 people of whom most were armed to the teeth is not peaceful but a mass of (not so) latent aggression. And the casualties of the Thirty Years War? C'maahn. How many people of color lived in the Holy Roman Empire? Or Native Americans?
The author's comparison to the Black Panthers, on the other hand, as well as his other observations are spot on.
Max Ruse (emigrant from the US after having looked into the wrong end of two gun barrels too many)
1
Thanks to Republican collaboration and Democratic cowardice, the gun lobby has been out of control for decades, and there are now groups even more extreme than the NRA. If by some miracle, we were ever to be blessed with strict gun control, as every other advanced country on earth, I predict that there would be the worst unrest since the Civil War.
42
@bnyc You forget the 1960's - turmoil world-wide but no class resolution to the issues.
I think they were completely aware of the purpose and intent of the demonstration: white men facing a future and a country where their power will continue to diminish reacted by threatening violence. Trump has brought this up before as well. Their goal was to intimidate the majority of Americans who don’t want gun violence in their neighborhoods into silence
These men feel marginalized and they react by fetishizing firearms in a desperate attempt to display power. They strolled through Richmond, stuffing shotguns into backpacks and strapping sidearms in InfoWars holsters, because each of them wanted to feel like someone everyone else should fear. But the fear was really only theirs.
441
@M
...and their most likely targets would never be the corporate leaders who are the real source of their pain.
143
@Jerseytime - Nor the corporation's wholly owned Congress Critters.
4
Of course as has been documented by numerous historians, the Second Amendment did not have anything to do with guaranteeing the right of individuals to own fire arms for personal defense. The whole point of the amendment was to try to ensure that no standing army would be created under federal control and that local/state militias would be America's democratic answer to the British and European system of professional, standing armies. Of course this all went by the boards over the years and today we have a professional standing army. The 2nd amendment is essentially a dead letter, like the 3rd amendment prohibiting the forced quartering of troops in private homes. In the slave states, of course, and on the frontier, the guns were often meant to be used against blacks and Indians. Thanks to Justice Scalia and the NRA the gun has been turned into a symbol of white supremacy and fear. It is also the principle means of suicide and family murder, and, of course, the occasional mass shooting.
187
Not true. It was enacted to allow state militias in the slave bearing states the right to bear arms in order to ensure slavery. Nothing to do with the British and protecting the states from foreign aggression at all.
2
@Mike The most ridiculous thing I've heard said is, "It's our right to have guns to protect ourselves against the government." I've literally heard fairly educated people (Southerners) say this without considering what century we live in. The fact that anyone thinks they can genuinely thwart the most militarized government in the world shows a lot of people aren't thinking at all...
4
@Mike
The Third Amendment is not as irrelevant as you suggest, as the Chinese government is forcibly quartering more than a million Communist Party officials in Uighur homes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/asia/china-xinjiang-home-stays-intl/index.html
4
68 year old rural white American here, Mr Bouie's piece is spot on. David commenting below already is dipping into "hunting and self protection" anxiously diverting from reality. I certainly appreciate the thought processes of the gun owners. I just don't think that thoughtfulness is reciprocal.
71
Admittedly your premise was a stretch for me. Will we see "socialist armed demanding health carer, probably not. Will we see a large group of black nationalists armed enraged at gun control, nada. The vast majority of the protesters in Richmond were white, I wasn't there but I will take your word for it. In all likelihood for all of the reasons that you outlined gun ownership is primarily by white men. Given that white men have had the political power in this country since its inception this should come as no surprise. What you ignore is that roughly 40% of men in the US own a gun but a surprising 22% of women do.
After reading Edsalls column today "Why Trump Persists" it is safe to assume that many of these protesters are scared. Many are probably from rural areas and are right wingers. America has undergone a lot of liberal change in more recent history, minority rights, the womens movement, gay rights, immigrants rights. Their homogeneous familiar white world has been under assault. Their historical power and presumed superiority is threatened.
18
@Steve I think you missed the primary point in Mr Bouie's well-developed thesis. The US is a fractured set of States...
4
@Steve I have never understood why giving rights to group B diminishes group A. If A doesn't want B to be equal, it becomes clear.
6
@Steve
Will we see them, no. Not the point.
The idea linking guns to white men and white dominance is, of course, just as described here. The reality is often not consistent with the idea. For example, most white pioneering families did not own a gun. These 22,000 white men, heavily armed, in pseudo military clothing, many wearing face masks, thousands of white supremacists among them, marched on Martin Luther King Day. Their message was obvious.
615
@Robert Wasn't that the point? Sending the "we've got the guns and we are ready" message on Martin Luther King Day. They could just have easily marched on Presidents Day and the weather would have been warmer.
I wonder whether any reporters conducted an impromptu survey and asked whether the marchers would have turned on Presidents Day.
16
@Robert
The message I see is a bunch of guys, some in designer fedoras with custom Cabella ammo vests, totally clueless to what a round from one of their precious weapons would actually do to them. As well as what it would feel like, boy, won't they be surprised!
To me that about sums it up. All this blather about 'civil war' is so absurd because any of these wannabe heroes would stop at the first real blister or twisted ankle, much less being shot with a rifle. Too much TV with these guys.
Reminds me of the video of college kids not knowing how a red-hot coat hanger used as a branding iron for their girlfriends would turn out. Wow.
11
I think you're making some assumptions here that aren't supported by the facts. You do present the Alabama law, which is patently discriminatory. But I doubt whether guns were expressly owned for violence against Native Americans or African Americans before the Civil War. Settler life required hunting and self-protection. After the Revolution, there was still a legitimate threat from England, realized in the War of 1812. The framers of the Constitution also realized that restricting gun ownership at that time would monopolize lethal force within the government. And they had just cast off a tyrannical government. America has for a long period of time been dominated by white men. That is indisputable. But I doubt it was founded as a "white republic." It was founded under the principles of liberty and equality, as they were understood by the socially conditioned humans of the time. I think a more illuminating column would have looked at the national and regional data that show most crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns. As dangerous as it was to potentially attract the white nationalists, it is not surprising that the law-abiding gun owners' protest was peaceful.
23
@David
In 1776, the US did not have a standing federal military or even law enforcement, so was reliant upon state militias to defend the nation from foreign aggression. IMO, it would be consistent with the original intent for the states to regulate gun ownership. So if Alabama wants to demand each resident be a member of the state militia and own a gun and ammunition, and NY wanted to limit gun ownership to those it selected, that would be consistent with original intent.
Currently, public safety is provided by local law enforcement. Even in areas with prompt response from law enforcement, the difference from being able to protect oneself immediately and five or ten minutes is the difference between like and death.
Whatever your view is of the Second Amendment, what it originally meant or how it has been interpreted over time, there are a lot of law abiding gum owners who make a logical argument that the country is better off if they are permitted to own guns.
The two church shootings in Texas, one with multiple casualties and the other with few, make a good case that gun free zones are not a great idea.
5
@David you say his article isn't supported by "the facts", then admit that the Alabama law he cites is discriminatory.
Just so we are clear, citing an ACTUAL law is equivalent to citing a fact... Then your rebuttal begins with "I doubt". Not a good start for a fact based argument.
Next you mention hunting (ok, legitimate), and "self-protection". Gee, I wonder who the settlers needed protection from? Probably the people whose land they just invaded...
On to the part about protection from England... it doesn't make any sense as to why that would be the primary, or even secondary reason to make everyone buy a gun. That's what raising an army is for... like we did, successfully, in the revolutionary war.
The point about fear of a tyrannical government - monopolizing lethal force within the state is actually the primary function of a state. That is the whole concept of having a police, army, national guard--all that stuff. If you're asking citizens to walk around carrying guns because they might have to use them so they dont get ripped off at the store, or attacked by random people, you aren't actually talking about a state at that point. That would be what Hobbes referred to as his State of Nature--where only strength wins out.
If people are that scared, they should be arguing for a stronger, more robust state. These protesters were doing the opposite.
And I'm out of characters but you those critiques should be enough to get your started.
35
@David, I don't think the framers were as worried about a tyrannical government as they were about the potential for a military coup from a standing army.
We were founded as a white republic because people of color weren't citizens.
15
If Mr. Bouie prefers to assume that the t-shirts bearing slogans such as "Don't Tread on Me" and "Come and Take It" are calls to civil insurrection, he is quite welcome to do so. However, these words could just as easily be interpreted as reminders that the use of firearms were necessary to procure the liberties Americans now enjoy. As a recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted, (and as Mr. Bouie did not), 100 Virginia counties have declared themselves second amendment sanctuaries. Apparently, opposition to the new gun laws is not limited to a small and allegedly marginal group of citizens.
37
@Quiet Waiting. If those counties really believe in the entire Second amendment, they will no doubt establish those "well regulated militia" that the Constitution calls for. I suspect that the cost alone would stop most of them.
Thanks.
78
@Lisa
The second amendment does not specify the level of government (local, county, state, or federal) responsible for maintaining the militia.
6
@Quiet Waiting
Only someone with absolutely no familiarity with those who wear such slogans would buy your argument.
The slogans do refer to history, but they invoke history for present purposes. The "come and take it" shirts/flags have a picture of an AR15 (M16?) on them, not the cannon of the Texas freedom fighters of 1836. The point is to draw a comparison between Santa Ana's dictatorship with the current VA legislature. And, to suggest violence if the legislature follows through with the new laws.
"Don't tread on me" has similar connotations because it was used in our war of revolution. These guys are not reenactors.
42
Actually, we do have laws to prevent the spectacle seen in Virginia. Most jurisdictions with open carry also have clauses to the effect that it cannot be done to the terror of the people-- so for example if you ostentatiously open carry while loitering around somebody's home, angrily glaring at the occupants, you can be arrested. These laws generally allow for a lot of latitude on the part of the police.
If the events in Virginia didn't qualify, I don't know what does.
236
I think if 20,000 white, gun-toting women marched, it would be accepted. However, with the exception of friends in rural areas who hunt, I don’t know any gun owners. If nothing else, I think suburban and urban people expect fairly prompt police response upon calling 911 and are more worried about the havoc guns can wreak than about being “a good guy with a gun”, much less defending ourselves from a tyrannical government (even though many of us fear we are slouching toward one as the Senate majority digs in to defend Trump.)
61
A million women marching in pink hats against Trump weren’t “accepted.”
1
"the same way it shapes almost every other aspect of American citizenship"
Like they say, if you're selling hammers you encourage people to think about everything like it's a nail. It is beyond hyperbolic to postulate that race shapes almost every aspect of the American experience. While that may be this author's opinion it strains credulity that is widely shared by a majority of Americans.
31
@Ted Living in Mississippi, I can tell you race is the single most important factor in just about every aspect of everyday life. Where we live, what schools we attend (and how those schools are funded), who we socialize with, where we worship, how we dress in public, where we drive at night, and whether or not we have access to healthcare all are affected by race.
465
@John H.
I'm sorry that this is your experience. I think there is a lot truth to this, but not necessarily for everyone in America.
11
@John H. And that’s why I am not investigating that state asca retirement destination.
17
White or not, just a look at the photo makes you ask: Would you really want to meet these "good guys" in a dark alley?
430
@MB yes, certainly before I’d want to meet the gun owners who were NOT there, regardless of color.
3
@MB
I wouldn't mind them being in that dark alley if I was being robbed at gunpoint.
7
Were you concerned with Occupy New York and some of their repeated and ongoing violations? The garbage they left? The interruption of private business and people’s lives? There were no crimes at this demonstration and the protesters picked up their trash. Stay open minded.
5
Very well written and very true as well. A friend of mine, who is African American, said if people wanted to see support for new gun control legislation, they should encourage minority group members to buy guns en masse, and watch how soon the NRA and other groups suddenly are pushing for stricter gun control laws. The same people who resist having required reporting for things like domestic violence and mental health issues to the gun background check database will suddenly be urging stronger background checks to help prevent people who shouldn't have guns from having them (assuming, of course, that in many states they will find any excuse to put minority group members on the blacklist, while ignoring red flags for white applicants).
651
@mjpezzi The felons have to pay court costs in order to vote? Wouldn’t that be considered a poll tax?
32
@Karen You would think. The Republican majority state legislature knows this law is an unconstitutional poll tax. However, they will take the benefit of a poll tax to keep themselves in power. Because those in power make the rules and reap the rewards.
41
Brillant strategy. I’d love to see that enacted.
But if we could be persuaded to act in the nations best interest, instead of narrow self interest, we would have a higher voter participation and more people would move to red states and turn them blue. We would march against the electoral college and to defang the Senate - a minority rule if there ever was one.
21