A frog who wants the objective truth about anything and everything.

Admin of SLRPNK.net

XMPP: prodigalfrog@slrpnk.net

Matrix: @prodigalfrog:matrix.org

  • 19 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle












  • Conceal carry restrictions have a long history of being created and selectively enforced against the black population.

    Example:

    During Reconstruction, several states, especially Southern states, passed laws banning concealed carry. These laws were often aimed at disarming African-Americans, and though they did not explicitly say so because of the 14th Amendment, were not to be >enforced against whites.

    Rivers H. Buford, associate justice of the Florida Supreme Court, said that the Florida law banning concealed carry, “[t]he original Act of 1893 … was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers … and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. … [I]t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5% of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it >has been generally conceded to be in contravention to the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.”[11]

    In fact, Florida was not the only such state to ban the carriage of arms by blacks, nor was it the most explicit. The 1834 Tennessee Constitution, 1836 Arkansas Constitution, as well as the 1838 Florida constitution, stated “That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.”

    This continued into the modern day, with Ronald Reagan and the NRA supporting and implementing the Mulford Act specifically to illegalize and target the Black Panthers and other black communities, who were exercising their rights to arm themselves to protect against police brutality and racists. Unfortunately the arming and legal targeting of the Black Panthers for that arming was very likely an FBI operation.

    There were some concealed gun control laws in old west towns that were implemented against whites as well, but even then, only selectively against those the local Law Enforcement didn’t like.
















  • I think the analogy holds up beautifully.

    The man proceeds to tell the booth talkers that he’s taken great pains to avoid seeing or hearing politics in his daily life, such as quickly muting political ads on TV, requesting his neighbors take down their Trump flags and local candidate election signs in their yard, and taking backroads to avoid seeing a political billboard on the way to work, all in the effort to spare their eyes the misfortune of sliding across disgusting politics. So it’s perfectly reasonable that he demand to the booth talkers they cease their discussion immediately, and switch to a topic he approves of, he explains, confident in the knowledge that they will understand the pains he’s gone through.

    The two people in the booth glance at each other uncomfortably, wondering what terrible fate brought this demanding and oddly entitled man to their booth. Finally, one of them flashes a half-grin and spreads their hands disarmingly “Hey man, I get it that you don’t like what we’re discussing, but if we give in to your request, wouldn’t that mean we’d have to give into any other request you have about topics? What if we were talking about sex amongst ourselves and that too wasn’t acceptable since you go to efforts to avoid that topic as well? I don’t think we want to live our lives beholden to your feelings on things, that’s for us to decide. Have a good day.”


  • Interesting, by your guidelines, there’s quite some limits on expressing oneself to appease people who can easily avoid and skip over a clearly labeled piece of content.

    From my perspective, it’s as though someone came into a tavern and, fresh ale in hand, overheard a political discussion happening in a corner booth. Perhaps the subject was particularly distasteful to this theoretical tavern goer, and instead of ignoring it or moving to a seat where they can’t hear it, they instead march up to said booth and demand these booth talkers cease their discussion immediately, explaining that they come to the tavern to relax, not have these political ideas pop up everywhere they go.

    I suspect the people in the booth would be quite bewildered as to why this theoretical person is going to such trouble to involve themselves in ceasing an activity they could so easily avoid.