askeptic,

Nope, predates the Norman invasion, but it DID get worse after that, and an argument can be made that that was ‘racist’, but most folks today would look at Normans and Saxons and say “white Europeans”. Ancient China had weapons control. Japan had weapons control during the Samurai era (when it was one of the most, if not the most, racially homogenous populations on earth). In America, we had periods where some areas forbade guns to the Red Injun, but also to folks (including white folks) who didn’t own land.

Never, ever said it wasn’t a tool used, in some instances, for racist oppression, but it was also used for classist oppression, oppression by sex, oppression by national origin, and even oppression by politics. As I said to .40 cal, it’s a tool of CONTROL.

.40 cal,

Normally, I either agree with your comments, or at least find them informative. And as I said, this ain’t it.

Reading comprehension,, much??

Please re-read my comment, and indicate where I ever indicated that ‘gun control’ was not (i) a tool of class oppression, or (ii) not also used for racist purposes. ‘Gun control’ is a tool of control – racial, class, political, even sexual/gender, name whatever control criteria floats your boat. What it is not (except to a LIMITED extent, in pre-war and Jim Crow America) is ‘historically rooted in racism’. As for the whole ‘racist against your own race’ trope? It is almost invariably closely tied to idiot with a ‘white savior’ complex – they aren’t racist against their own race, they are virtue-signaling hyporites, who pretend, in their own deranged minds, that only they can defend the poor, helpless, blacks/browns/reds/yellows/etc. They are racist AF, against ‘people of color’, they’re just too stupid and dishonest to realize it.

Reading is Fundamental, as the saying goes.

Not only racist, but unconstitutional.

One of eras of British gun control disarmed Catholics. Another disarmed the working class. Classic slippery slope.

Seems that I recall that “arms control” in Olde England was imposed by the Normans on the Saxons – tribal/racial and still discriminatory.

anglo-saxon peasants and anglo-saxon ‘rulers’ were two distinct classes of people. That was two part: First part – oppressive class discrimination, not racists in the sense of color but still in effect and practice as the same discriminatory practices are used for the same oppression effect as is used in racism. Second part – one can be racist against their own race – for example, the AWLF’s (Affluent White Liberal Female’s) frequently discriminate against other white people because they are white thus these AWLF are racists.

.40 cal,

” . . . the history of ‘gun control’ which began based upon discriminating against other races, . . . ”

Dafuq???? So, the anglo-saxon ‘rulers’ were discriminating against other races when they prohibited anglo-saxon peasants from having swords or longbows?? Dude, you’re normally pretty sensible, and . . . this ain’t it.

YES, ‘arms control’ is a power tool, and it CAN be used for racist ends (no sh*t, Sherlock), but . . . it has been around for centuries, and used in racially-homogenous societies. Can we please stop being simplistic???

Just another educated “idiot”.

A dizzying intellect?

Inconceivable!

Interestingly, Justice Brown seemed to think the Black Codes were a proper historical precedence to back up Hawaii’s argument.

“On the other hand, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to find that persuasive: “I thought the Black Codes were being offered here under the Bruen test to determine the constitutionality of this regulation. And it’s because we have a test that asks us to look at the history and tradition.” So she’s appealing to racist laws meant to disarm blacks in order to undermine a decision she doesn’t like (Bruen). Truly, she has a dizzying intellect.” From the Patriot Post