Friday, February 22, 2013

- Frithguild, You May be Onto Something...


Black Leaders: ‘Direct Correlation Between Gun Control and Black People Control’

“History is [rife] with examples. There’s a direct correlation between gun control and black people control,” Stacy Swimp, president and CFO of the Frederick Douglass Society, said at the event.




9 comments:

Tom said...

I've been saying that very thing for years as well:

Widespread gun ownership has long been documented as a deterrent to criminal activity. But in spite of this widely recognized fact, the gun control movement has always been most active in areas with high crime rates. Advocates of the gun control movement argue that the crime is the cause of their efforts, when in fact it’s become increasingly clear that the high crime rate is more likely to be an effect of it. Successful implementation of gun control disarms only the members of a community who are willing to abide by its laws, leaving those who have chosen a life of crime with a substantial advantage in firepower. That criminal element can proceed with confidence knowing that the government has made it very rare that their victims will be able to fight back.

The racist origins of the gun control movement are no secret. The gun control movement has always been only about ensuring that minorities stay unarmed, and although it’s advocates are unlikely to admit it, that continues to be the case. New Jersey’s gun laws are not aimed at disarming rich suburbanites, but young black men. And in the case of this recent shooting, those laws have famously succeeded. None of the victims was armed, and therefore none of them was able to defend themselves.

And this which is a summary page:

http://freenj.blogspot.com/2007/08/hurting-sport-of-killing-black-people.html


The NRA should be doing minority outreach. Law abiding black people should see the NRA as their friend, because it is. It always has been.

frithguild said...

The long bow ended the economic advantage of the armored knight and feudalism.

Mass production of firearms ended the economic advantage of slavery.

Tom said...

Not to be too totally argumentative, but I don't think I buy that Frith.

As I understood it, firearm ended the armored knight. Armor lasted for hundreds of years after the longbow. They used them at Poiters in the 1300 but the last of armor was still in use in the 1600's when firearms arrived. It disappeared soon after.

The plow blade ended feudalism by creating excess food and allowing for more specialization.

And mass production of the stuff slaves used to make by hand, is what undid the economics of slavery. Firearms were only incidental to that last one.

That's how I head it anyway.

frithguild said...

At the Battle of Crécy 1346 the the Welsh longbow neutralized cavalry charges by armored knights. The Welsh longbow could pierce armor. The armored knight was no longer the apex weapon. Feudalism was designed around fielding armored knights. I think most would put the final decline of feudalism around 150 years later.

I would have to look into it further, but I don't recall any particular innovations in European farming techniques during this time period.

frithguild said...

The black death took place at this time, which increased the value of labor resulting in the weakening of the adscripti glebae relationship between labor and land. Trade also increased in the following period.

ikaika said...

Not true:
Armored Knights - and a greatly outnumbered force of Armored Horsemen drove the Turks out of Austria.
Sobieski and his Winged Hussars (The Wings were an ornament, but were a disadvantage)
The matchlock was ineffective in stopping cavalry charges.

Although the Matchlock heralded that the tide for this type of armour was turning.

ikaika said...

one more comment: Gun Control Legislation is a return to Jim Crow laws.

frithguild said...

Hussars were light cavalry generally and mercenaries, not heavy knights in service to a King. The Ottomans got slaughtered at Zenta because the Hapsburgs forces breached defenses on foot while the Turks were cannon fodder on an exposed bridge. Deployment of heavy knights was not a factor.

I argue that once the Welsh longbow was effective at piercing armor, infantry became far more important that the heavy knight. Mercenaries and infantry could not be supported very well by a feudal economy, so it faded away.

ikaika said...

The deployment of armored calvary was definitely a factor and correctly used as a "mop-up" after the infantry and artillary did their thing.
The strategy - as with the armored fighter - didn't fall into obsolescence, but modified for efficacy as the effective range and rate of fire changed with the times.