[continued from previous message]

"[If black people] were entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to
persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and
to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the
face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering
the peace and safety of
the State."
1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Dred Scott v. Sandford

It’s not that black gun ownership is “good” per se or deserves to be lauded any more than white or Hispanic or Asian gun ownership. The point is that people who are in danger, or at least feel that they are, will often reach
out to firearms to
protect themselves – especially if state actors seem reluctant or incapable of enforcing the law and protecting them and their families. In this sense, the
desire for weapons for self-defense isn’t just a universal impulse, it’s also a basic
democratic right.

“The first right” is the one that secures all the others, sure. But an armed insurrection in the streets isn’t a necessary component. In the case of
Monroe, North Carolina, all it took was returning fire against one attack.

After all – God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)