Lest you think Ghettoputer exaggerates when he cites the intimate ties between Jim Crow and gun control, I point you in the direction of this law-review article which does a nice job with the history and connection. Here’s the epigraph, emphasis mine:
“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…. [T]he Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population…. [I]t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute…. [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.” —Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) (Buford, J., concurring).
The often-forgotten role of the Deacons for Defense & Justice, who provided law-abiding armed protection to black communities and peaceful protests in the civil-rights movement of the ’60s also shows how the Second Amendment often serves a—if not the—guarantor of all other rights. As the authors of the above article point out in connection with New York City’s Sullivan Act of 1911 (still on the books, ensuring only the rich and wealthy can legally protect themselves), it hasn’t just been black Americans who’ve born the burden of disarmament because of majorities’ fears and bigotry.
Don’t ask impertinent questions like that jackass Adept Lu.