• Rivalarrival
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

          disarming people that have a criminal record

          This is already the law.

          mental health issues

          As NAMI says:

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

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

      NRA-Supported

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

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

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

            After 1977, the NRA supported Reagan’s presidency.

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

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

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

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

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

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