Here, let me just get this out of the way by stating it as explicitly as I can: Jason Whitlock is a racist. And were he not a black man and a liberal, everyone in the media would today be howling for his head.

Instead, we’ll be told that Whitlock is opening up an important avenue to dialogue on race and guns — the phony “considered” response that the left likes to break out when one of their own so seriously and publicly fucks up, even in the course of defending one of their ideological tenets: taking away people’s rights to self-protection in order to leave them vulnerable and dependent on the State. The new narrative from the left is not that they’re against guns per se. That message was costing them rural Democrat votes. Instead, they’re now just for “reasonable reform,” like doing away with “high capacity magazines.” You know, “common sense” gun control measures.

Do keep up, Jason.

But in truth, there’s really nothing to “dialogue” about, because in addition to being ignorant, presumptuous, and now a public race baiter — because let’s face it, when Whitlock talks of the NRA as the new KKK, he’s not talking about any black members of the NRA, but rather wants to paint a mental picture of the boys from “Duck Dynasty” and maybe a length of rope — Whitlock is historically uninformed.

Stefan B. Tahmassebi, George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal (1991):

The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other “unwanted elements,” including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.

The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from exercising their rights of citizenship. During the later part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, gun control laws were passed in the South in order to disarm agrarian reformers and in the North to disarm union organizers. In the North, a strong xenophobic reaction to recent waves of immigrants added further fuel for gun control laws which were used to disarm such persons. Other firearms ownership restrictions were adopted in order to repress the incipient black civil rights movement.

Another old American prejudice supported such gun control efforts, then as it does now: the idea that poor people, and especially the black poor, are not to be trusted with firearms. Even now, in many jurisdictions in which police departments have wide discretion in issuing firearm permits, the effect is that permits are rarely issued to poor or minority citizens. [Page 68]

Blacks, and especially poor blacks, are disproportionately the victims of crime. Yet, these citizens are often not afforded the same police protections that other more affluent and less crime ridden neighborhoods or communities enjoy. This lack of protection is especially so in the inner city urban ghettos. Firearms prohibitions discriminate against those poor and minority citizens who must rely on such arms to defend themselves from criminal activity to a much greater degree than affluent citizens living in safer and better protected communities.

Prohibiting firearms ownership among law-abiding citizens will do nothing to reduce violent crime since such behavior is virtually nonexistent among persons without previous records of serious violence or criminal behavior. However, as many studies indicate, such firearms prohibitions may significantly reduce the deterrent effect of widespread civilian gun ownership on criminals, especially in regard to crimes such as residential burglaries and commercial robberies.

Further, statistics and past history show that many millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans would not heed any gun ban, either prohibiting semiautomatic firearms or handguns. This response should be expected given the traditional American attitude towards guns and the banning of any commodity deeply valued by a substantial portion of society.

Finally, constitutional protections, other than the right to keep and bear arms, have been violated and are threatened by the enforcement of restrictive firearms laws. Present enforcement of firearms statutes account for numerous illegal searches and seizures by the police. Most often these unconstitutional searches and seizures are directed against the poor and racial minorities. Violent crime, however serious, does not justify the wholesale violation of fundamental freedoms, such as the right to be secure in one’s person and effects from unwanted government intrusion.

[…]

The historical purpose of gun control laws in America has been one of discrimination and disenfranchisement of blacks, immigrants, and other minorities. American gun control laws have been enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive actions against union organizers, [Page 69] workers, the foreign-born and racial minorities.[2] Bans on particular types of firearms and firearms registration schemes have been enacted in many American jurisdictions for the alleged purpose of controlling crime. Often, however, the purpose or actual effect of such laws or regulations was to disarm and exert better control over the above-noted groups.[3] As Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control statute:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here 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 of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.[4]

Implicit in the message of such a law was the perceived threat that armed Negroes would pose to the white community. As applied, therefore, the statute sent a clear message: only whites could be trusted with guns, while Negroes could not.

[…]

The development of racially based slavery in the seventeenth century American colonies was accompanied by the creation of laws meting out separate treatment and granting separate rights on the basis of race. An early sign of such emerging restrictions and one of the most important legal distinctions was the passing of laws denying free blacks the right to keep arms. “In 1640, the first recorded restrictive legislation passed concerning blacks in Virginia excluded them from owning a gun.”[5]

Virginia law set Negroes apart from all other groups . . . by denying them the important right and obligation to bear arms. Few restraints could indicate [Page 70] more clearly the denial to Negroes of membership in the White community. This first foreshadowing of the slave codes came in 1640, at just the time when other indications first appeared that Negroes were subject to special treatment.[6]

In the later part of the 17th Century fear of slave uprisings in the South accelerated the passage of laws dealing with firearms possessions by blacks. In 1712, for instance, South Carolina passed “An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and Slaves” which included two articles particularly relating to firearms ownership and blacks.[7] Virginia passed a similar act entitled “An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections.”[8]

Thus, in many of the ante-bellum states, free and/or slave blacks were legally forbidden to possess arms. State legislation which prohibited the bearing of arms by blacks was held to be constitutional due to the lack of citizen status of the Afro-American slaves. Legislators simply ignored the fact that the United States Constitution and most state constitutions referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a right of the “people” rather than of the “citizen”.[9]

The Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not citizens.[10] In the Georgia case of Cooper v. Mayor of Savannah, a similar provision passed constitutional muster on the grounds that “free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.”[11] Chief Justice Taney argued, in the infamous Dred Scott case, that the Constitution could not have intended that free blacks be citizens:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operations of the special laws and from the police regulations which they [the states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the Negro race, who [Page 71] were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, . . . [A]nd it would give them 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.[12]

After the conclusion of the American Civil War, several southern legislatures adopted comprehensive regulations, Black Codes, by which the new freed men were denied many of the rights that white citizens enjoyed. The Special Report of the Antislavery Conference of 1867 noted with particular emphasis that under these Black Codes blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.”[13] Mississippi’s Black Code included the following provision:

Be it enacted . . . [t]hat no freedman, free Negro or mulatto, not in the military . . . and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, . . . and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer . . . .”[14]

The firearms confiscated would often be turned over to the Klan, the local (white) militia or law enforcement authorities which would then, safe in their monopoly of arms and under color of the Black Codes, further oppress and violate the civil rights of the disarmed freedmen.

The United States Congress overrode these Black Codes with the Civil Rights Act and the fourteenth amendment. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the fourteenth amendment are replete with denunciations of those statutes denying blacks equal access to firearms for personal self-defense.[15]

[my emphases]

Confiscating guns, turning them over to the Klan, securing a white monopoly on the power of owning and bearing arms — these positions were intended to keep free blacks virtually enslaved by taking away one of their NATURAL rights, the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protecting themselves, in this case, against those colluding with local government.

And of course, ironically, it was Republicans who were the main drivers of the Civil Rights laws; a Republican President who emancipated the slaves; and abolitionists (today’s “social conservatives”) who helped change the public perception of slavery’s moral viability.

The NRA fights incessantly and without giving ground to protect our fundamental rights to keep and bear arms. That is, they protect the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which expressed a natural right to protection and was meant as a deterrent against attempts by tyrants to reassert their rule over free men.

That is, they are the anti-KKK, when it comes to gun rights. That Whitlock conflates the NRA’s desire to keep men free and protected with the consequences of bad actors who kill using fire arms, is yet more proof that the victim culture — the culture of passing the responsibility off on some historical actor or some white-faced Devil who holds the wrong political views — is what is truly responsible for the plantation mentality of so many liberal blacks.

Here’s my advice, unwanted, because it comes from a white man’s mouth: accept personal responsibility and stop looking for scapegoats. Sure, it will force you to look critically at yourself — which is far more difficult than merely lashing out at all the straw devils that people your fevered, tiny brain — but in the end, it is truly liberating, and it will put you in touch with those in this country who, despite your rank uselessness and your constant attempts to demonize them, nevertheless continue to protect your rights as well as their own.

It’s called being a fucking grown up.

Give it a go.