Although responding to Greg's message, I will have a comment about one of Prof. Olson's messages too.
I don't like to think of myself as belonging to ancient history, yet my life spans a time when whites tried to keep guns away from blacks." In my childhood home town, a black man (an upstanding man) was hired as deputy town constable primarily to keep black bars peaceful on Saturday nights. He was given a badge, but unlike white deputies, was not permitted to carry a gun. Even today, with the pattern of selective enforcement, driving while black is an issue in some parts of the country and blacks found with a firearm are not treated the same today as whites in many places too. Prof. Olson responding to Eugene says "There is no "academic" study [of "criminal gangs that tend to be organized along ethnic minority lines"], that would be racist." I must object to this this misstatement by an otherwise very intelligent and educated person. A study of whether gangs tend to be organized along ethnic minority lines might be racist in some environments, but not necessarily so. Prof. Olson is trained in the law and not science and his experience is likely corrupted by today's environment of competing studies published not for understanding and not for science, but for issue advocacy. But Prof. Olson should train his PC comments on academics who fail in their responsibility to first principles. Truth is never racist and scientifically based studies to uncover truth aren't racist either. Phil > > Prof. Olson writes: > > >The reason is simple: The persistent and always tense debate over > >gun rights has thinly veiled underlying racial and socio-political > >struggles that are as old as the Union itself. > > I might be opening a can of worms but here goes..... > > While I admit to being something less of a legal scholar than most on > this discussion list, I do have a modicum of information on the > subject, as do you all, and some experience as an American, as do you > all. And I simply cannot accept Professor Olson's overall > hypothesis. While I will readily admit that the roots of modern gun > control in America, especially in southern jurisdictions but perhaps > in all, is doubtlessly racial, it seems to me that the thin veil of > race being the reason for gun control has long since evaporated, at > least in its original context. I can simply accept it as a social > issue, or socio-political is that's more comfortable, as opposed to a > legal issue. Except for a small group of either (1) clear headed, > educated legal scholars or (2) radically closed minded but still > educated legal scholars it really is not a legal issue, just an > emotionally charged social issue. The members of this esteemed group > falls into the former, of course, but when some of the greatest > liberal, legal minds in the country agree with our position that > leaves but a few (dare I say a noisy few?) who simply stand radically > opposed to guns and find it easy, and necessary, to twist the right > to keep and bear arms into something it never was or was never > intended to be. > > That said, it is my experience that, as a group, black Americans, > Hispanic Americans, and even some other "non-white classified" > Americans are not clamoring to support the right to keep and bear > arms in overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, what I do see is > unfortunately large numbers of black Americans hand in hand, > actually, I like "lockstep" better for that cliche, with certain > white Americans, opposing the right to keep and bear arms. What I > notice is that in great numbers the white Americans in this high > stepping group are mostly well educated and affluent to some > degree. And seriously misguided. Bearing that in mind, the > socio-political aspect of Professor Olson's hypothesis makes great > sense, but the racial aspect does not because whites trying to keep > guns away from blacks is, simply put, ancient history. Whites > trying to ensure that their police have guns while their neighbors > across town do not seems to be the essence of the debate these > days. The District of Columbia, which is very heavily > black, includes the above referenced black locksteppers, the folks > who simply do not think that their neighbors should own guns and, so, > they write laws that are patently unconstitutional to ensure that > this is accomplished. > > Therefore, it is my opinion, for what little it is worth, that the > future of the debate will remain in the socio-political context only, > that race will play no role, and that the issue, after Heller settles > the individual rights issue favorably, and assuming the SCOTUS never > applies the Second Amendment to the States, will be exactly how much > local or Federal control is reasonable to exercise over an > individual's right to own firearms, or any arms for that > matter. This is certainly cultural, and it is definitely not an easy > topic, but it should result in a very inspiring discourse; on that I > know can agree with Professor Olson! > > ***GRJ*** > -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
