Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

It’s well documented that early gun control laws were enacted expressly to keep guns out of the hands of Negros, who were thought to lack either the ability or the willingness to conform their behavior to the dictates of civilized society.

Nowadays, Americans are much more enlightened.  We are told Blacks are not merely equal to Whites, they are morally superior.  But then how to account for this weekend’s spasm of gun violence in Chicago, which seems to have involved mostly Black youth?

Current empirical evidence appears to support the historical justification for racial restrictions on firearms ownership – Blacks are unwilling or unable to behave.  Liberals take it a step farther, saying the nation’s history of slavery means Blacks should not be obligated to behave, they should get a pass for breaking the law: not arrested, not imprisoned, certainly not shot, no matter how egregious the bad behavior.

Former President George Bush labeled that attitude “the soft bigotry of low expectations” because modern Liberals and old-time Klansmen held the same view of Black behavior, differing only in whether it is justified.

And obviously, not all Blacks act badly but the numbers show they’re likely to, out of all proportion to their representation in population.  That’s not proof every Black person should be denied firearms.  Race isn’t conclusive.  We can’t act on likelihood.

Similarly, young men aged 15-29 are most likely to develop mental illness, fail to take their meds, and listen to the voices telling them to kill.  Not all young men, but disproportionately so.  That’s not proof they should be denied firearms.  We can’t act on likelihood.

What if we could?

Imagine a scientist could devise a fool-proof and absolutely reliable test to predict which people have a propensity toward violence.  Might society desire a law to ban those people from owning weapons, similar to the way felons are barred from owning weapons?   And if two identifiable groups happened to dominate the pool – say, for example Scots and Blacks – would the ban pass muster under the theory that the Constitution is not a suicide pact?  Or would society lack the courage to admit the obvious – that some people are simply not capable of conforming their behavior to the dictates of civilized society and therefore for its own protection, civilized society must exclude those people from certain fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the rest?

Still don’t like it?

Now let’s talk about the Jake Laird Act.  Congress is asked to give grants to reward local law enforcement who can seize personal firearms on “probable cause” which the owner can only get back after six months have passed, and after the owner proves to the court that the owner is not dangerous.  It’s based on individuals, not groups, but it lets gun-hating-cops seize innocent citizens’ guns based on the slimmest rumor, gossip, undisclosed informants, and speculation, same as any search warrant application.  We don’t have to imagine the government could disarm the citizenry.  We’re already there.

Joe Doakes

They’re pretty sneaky.