Gun Control Means Giving Only Government The Right To Have Guns

Over and over again I have saw the liberal talking heads on TV
ridiculing the idea that any American has any need to have guns
to protect themselves from the government.

With that in mind I wish that you would watch the video below
and then ask yourself if this need may again reappear in the future,
or if such occurrences are all safely in the past?

Having watched this video I suggest that you read

The Dark Secret of Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control

HERE

In the Tennessee 1871 case, Andrews v. State, the argument sounds a lot like the one being made by gun control advocates today:  “Andrews had been carrying a repeating pistol (what we would today call a large revolver). The legislature could not ban the carrying of this type of arm, which was particularly useful for militia service: ‘The pistol known as the repeater is a soldier’s weapon—skill in the use of which will add to the efficiency of the soldier. If such is the character of the weapon here designated, then the prohibition of the statute is too broad to be allowed to stand. …’”

The refrain, “No one needs an automatic firearm” echoing Tennessee’s banning “The pistol known as the repeater is a soldier’s weapon—skill in the use of which will add to the efficiency of the soldier.”, as does as the attack on the “so called” assault rifle.

“The Tennessee statute contradicted Andrews' affirmation of the right to buy any type of handgun in a store and carry it home. The law still allowed any model of handgun to be taken home, but the buyer would have to put the gun in a cart or wagon, rather than carry it. While the law allowed the carrying—for any purpose, and in public—of army model handguns, the requirement that the gun be carried “in his hands” was likely to provoke fear and almost certain to cause accidents. In effect, the law went as far as possible to outlaw all handgun possession while maintaining a pretense of honoring the right to bear arms.”

“Then in 1879, the legislature banned the sale of all handguns “except army or navy pistols.” The obvious effect was to prevent freedmen from owning handguns. Almost all were poor and could not afford the expensive Army and Navy models. Meanwhile, the ex-confederate soldiers already had plenty of Army and Navy models that they had been allowed to take home under the surrender terms for the Confederate army.”

The gun control pushers of today would leave guns in the hands of the police and those who can afford private police.  For the rest of us, black or white, they would leave us to our fate.  Or as they say, “when second count the police are only minutes away!”

The below link will take you to a PDF copy of “The Sun” August 8^th, 1919, and in an article called “How War Jolted the Sullivan Law” (you can magnified and move the image around to read article)  it explains how the Sullivan Act was used to allowed the faverit to be armed, and to jail the undesirables.
LINK

"The Sullivan law not only made the possessor of firearms amenable to its punishment clause, but designated a stiff fine and a jail sentence for any person who sold such weapons to any one not possessed of a proper permit. Those citizens who possessed firearms were cautioned to report such ownership to Police Headquarters and, if Police Headquarters deemed it wisdom to allow the registrant to retain the pistol or revolver or whatever it chanced to be, the citizen were given a permit for which he paid a few dollars."

In this link to the “Richmond planet”, November 25, 1899, Page 4, 

LINK

there is an article (4th column from the left near the bottom) with the headline “AN OUTRAGUEOUS DECISION”   we read the following:

“The latest outrageous verdict comes from Friars Point, Miss., under date of Nov. 8, 1899, and says that in the case of W. H. Elder (white) manager of the local telephone exchange who was charged with the murder of Burt Ward (colored) the coroners jury returned a verdict that Ward committed suicide by reflecting upon a white man's character.

There was no denial that Elder literately and premeditatedly shot Ward.

If he had killed or maimed a horse he would have been fined at least $25 besides being required to pay the value of the animal.

We call attention to the fact that this murder was committed in Mississippi, which has disfranchised the Negro.

The Richmond, Va., Times has recently declared that such a remedy is "cure-all" for race troubles. We should like much to read its explanation of this crime, or stand convicted of advocating a policy which will do us much harm and the white man no good.

Colored men must protect themselves as there is no law now in the Southland to protect them.

We believe in owning firearms, and praying to God for the nerve to use them. This kind of "lamb-offering business" has no attraction for us.”

There can be no doubt that an unarmed man is treated differently than one who is armed.