January 19 has been declared “Gun Appreciation Day” by a coalition of right-wing groups who adore the second amendment (and apparently loathe all the others). The group’s press release calls on America’s gun lovers to “show their support for gun ownership by turning out en masse at gun stores, ranges, and shows from coast to coast” to “protest the Obama administration’s post Sandy Hook assault on gun rights.”
They even created a website devoted solely to “Gun Appreciation Day“. Each page is bursting with stars and stripes, a testament to how much these folks love America, freedom and guns, all of which are interchangeable if you ask them.
It’s no accident they chose January 19 to collectively mark their paranoid obsession with firearms. The purpose of the date, they say, is “to send a message to Washington two days before Obama’s second inauguration”. That sounds like a veiled threat to me, but what’s new? This distinctively hostile form of activism from the gun lobby and its supporters is so common that we don’t even think twice about it anymore.
But here’s a thought experiment: How would the nation respond if muslim Americans, black Americans or undocumented residents behaved in a similar manner? I have no doubt that these groups would immediately be targeted for surveillance, detained, deported and portrayed as violent savages in the media.
The pro-gun movement is tolerated because it’s overwhelmingly white (and male). Does anyone really believe that the NRA’s positions would be acceptable if they advocated arming nonwhite citizens? Do you really think the US government would let black, arab, or latino groups get away with forming armed militias? That’s what white extremist groups have done all around the country, a fact that rarely receives mention in the mainstream press. Even worse, these groups are not a high priority for federal law enforcement.
When the gun lobby declares that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to pack heat anywhere, at anytime and without government interference, they’re talking about people like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. Otherwise, they would have come out in full force after the murders of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, to demand that we arm young men of color for their protection. They would be calling for the release of John McNeil, a black man serving a life sentence for shooting a white trespasser who attacked him at his home in Georgia.
On that note, I want to end this post with a hilariously informative and relevant clip from Michael Moore’s documentary, Bowling for Columbine:
LOL! This is the gist of your article.
“I watched a Michael Moore film so now I know more than you”
Such a douchebag. Just quit, nobody is even reading your shit.
January 8, 2013 at 7:14 pmWow, it’s so brave of you to childishly insult me behind your anonymous online persona.
January 8, 2013 at 8:40 pmKeep on writing Rania. We need more like you.
January 8, 2013 at 11:32 pmThank you Jo Ann 🙂
January 9, 2013 at 12:42 am>> nobody is even reading your shit.
Mr. F***off, I’m puzzled, my middle name actually is ‘Nobody’. How did you know I was reading her shit? Enjoy it quite a bit actually, very informative and enlightening posts.
January 9, 2013 at 1:45 amThe problem is that History shows over and over that nothing good follows any kind of gun control. Not that people should be armed but they should have the liberty to have that as their valid option.
The tragic episodes of shootings on schools it’s easily preventable by having one or two armed police officers in schools. It’s far from ideal but if we tolerate that on banks what would be the big deal about having them on schools?
January 9, 2013 at 2:37 pmSebastian Sastre:
Really? So why does the U.S. have some of the most lax laws in the world? What do you need automatic weapons for?
January 9, 2013 at 8:16 pmBecause the state has them–and for the same reason. In principle, if the state has tanks, I want a tank in my garage. Waco stands as an example of military force being used against civilians. We won’t even go into the militarization of our police force such as at Ruby Ridge.
January 13, 2013 at 1:17 amIt puzzles me why issues like guns, healthcare, fair tax policy are so polarizing, yet the data supports all three positions. Oh yeah–I forgot that one of our two political parties no longer tolerates facts and anything reality-based.
Your framing this issue along racial lines is interesting and one that I’ve been thinking about, especially after reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’ excellent essay in The Atlantic on the NRA and guns, also framed along similar lines. http://goo.gl/XVjwy
Glad to have found my way to your site via Twitter. Great writing.
Btw, Tony Horwitz equates today’s NRA/guns for every person/every occasion crowd with the Fireeaters, during the escalation leading up to the Civil War.
January 9, 2013 at 8:46 pmThe Black Panthers understood the need for guns: Self Defense. Malcolm X understood their utility and the 2nd Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. Huey Newton had some interesting stories to tell about backing down some violently inclined racist police. The NRA does not discriminate against minorities and supports the right of all Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights. Why should the state have a monopoly on force? The purpose of the 2nd Amendment remains valid today: To defend against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic! Thoughtful readers may have noticed the greatest death tolls seem to accumulate in gun free zones.
January 12, 2013 at 2:35 amWow,
I just stumbled into this vacuum of wisdom. You have a whole to say about a subject you seem to be exceptionally ignorant of. I must say I laughed out loud at the pro-gun (second amendment) stereotype you blabbered on about. Oh the irony of how you made this thread in to one of racial motivation.
Rania please take an hour or two to research anything you decide to post. Not just any propaganda that supports your perception but those that challenge and differ from your opinion. Start from the beginning of this, let me see….. The first sentence: “right-wing groups who adore the second amendment (and apparently loathe all the others).”
Explain the whole apparently loathe all the others-we are talking the bill of rights, right. I and folks like me understand the intent of the bill of rights as well as the conditions it was created. As such we understand the risk incurred with any attack on one or a whole.
What you really have is a group of citizens trying to retain rights and another group wanting to take them away on the false premises of enhanced “safety”. They are exercising our first amendment right and that unnerves you doesn’t it.
January 12, 2013 at 11:07 pm“When the gun lobby declares that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to pack heat anywhere, at anytime and without government interference, they’re talking about people like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn.” -Wow, that’s a huge stretch right there. Actually, the 2nd amendment was inserted to protect against tyrannical governments that use force to contain any resistance from the people. That was the reason early settlers uprooted their families, traveled in wooden ships risking death even by the smallest storm, and started a new life in empty land 1000s of miles away. Even if you get your way and outlaw all guns (that is the ultimate goal isn’t it?) it will still fail just like all prohibitions have failed (alcohol, drugs, abortions). Remove the labels and think in broader terms. You’re essentially trying to legislate morality with the mentality that passing a law will make someone a better person-reducing the supply of x will reduce the demand of x- but this is completely false and lacks a basic understanding of economics. A gun ban will create a shortage as people seeking protection with guns won’t stop looking bc you tell them to- this will open up a black market where the price for guns will skyrocket as there will be less suppliers and thus less competition. This makes buying guns more dangerous and allow criminals, who break the law anyway, to have an enormous advantage over the general population knowing they are now unarmed. Most surveys of convicts show they are more scared of a homeowner being armed than they are of being arrested. You made such a generic argument it almost seems like you write posts when you see something that pisses you off on CNN and spend 10 minutes venting on the internet and call it independent journalism. You didn’t even bother addressing the other side of the argument.
January 13, 2013 at 11:57 pm