Police Abuse

The Inevitable Collision Between Black Lives Matter and Gun Control

Or, what in hell is any Michael Bloomberg group doing anywhere near regular BLM-related phone calls?

|

This fall has been full of noise from gun control advocates seeking to hitch their wagon to the seemingly far more ascendant Black Lives Matter movement. As I write in today's Los Angeles Times, there's an inherent contradiction in what the two groups are after:

That alliance, however, is truly unlikely, even nonsensical. Historically, civil rights and gun control have been at odds. The blunt fact is that one side seeks to rein in law enforcement, while the other wishes to give it more power. […]

Whenever government agents gain more power over citizens, whether to enforce bans on loose cigarettes or raze private property to build a baseball stadium, poor and disadvantaged communities will be on the receiving end first and hardest.  

Whole thing, including appearances by Radley Balko, Rand Paul, Clarence Thomas, and of course Michael Bloomberg, here.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds had a similar column recently in USA Today.

NEXT: Hostage Situation in Mali, Top U.S. Insurer Wants to Ditch Obamacare, Princeton Sit-In Ends: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Welch quotes Clarence Thomas in his piece. Article: INVALIDATED

    1. Justice Thomas is probably the most-sharp and most-Constitutional of all the SCOTUS justices.

  2. Of course, there is a common thread: each group desires action by a central govt to force everyone else into compliance.

  3. Matt’s premise presupposes the BLM movement consists of the poor and disadvantaged. It doesn’t.

    1. It doesn’t, FWIW.

    2. Where do you get that from? Present the entire proof, please, and remember, [citations needed].

      1. If BLM is led by an advantaged and rich contingency, then they will happily accept gun control on a revised list of their 10 reforms over at Campaign Zero. Thus gun control and BLM is not so far fetched.

        1. Matt’s argument is about the fundamental inconsistency of BLM & Gun Control’s stated aims.

          Your claim about BLM actually being made up of upper-class blacks suggests that they don’t *really* care about the plight of the poor, criminal underclass…. that they don’t actually mean what they say, and are more interested in gaining personal influence on mainstream progressive politics – i.e. “white people stuff”.

          What you say may be true, if cynical – but its still irrelevant to Matt’s point.

          He’s taking their claims at face value and pointing out that their goals of reducing police violence in black communities are completely at odds with the Gun Control movement, which has a long track record of supporting aggressively policing of minorities for non-violent offenses.

  4. Anybody whose proposition for addressing a given problem is state-enforced prohibition will find himself in his very own, unique set of chains at some point in the future.

  5. From the Glenn Reynolds article:

    “I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.”

    No, if Congress is going to act on this matter, it should step up to the plate and say if you meet federal qualifications, no state can challenge your right to bear arms.

    1. That quote is astounding, not surprising, but astounding;

      “I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum amount of money that a state can take from someone who is obeying the law to the letter to $500. That would let states extort reasonably, without permitting these sort of greater injustices.”

      1. Since, as even the Supreme Court acknowledges, the 14th Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and since Congress has power to enforce that amendment, I can certainly see how a bill to secure these rights throughout the country would be constitutional.

        But by what authority can Congress, after conceding the power of the states to pass certain laws, purport to limit the penalties? The 8th Amendment?

        1. But by what authority can Congress, after conceding the power of the states to pass certain laws, purport to limit the penalties? The 8th Amendment?

          Am I allowed to use the word penaltax and/or invent new legal precedent whole cloth or is that right out?

          1. Heck, you can award New York five Senators. You can declare a right to free drugs. Anything goes.

  6. Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

    …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. ”

    If you disagree with or don’t like this,you live in the wrong country. you need to move somewhere else.
    This is a basic tenet of America. a core concept.

  7. Bloomberg is trying to harness the BLM to advance his failing gun control. Mobs are easy to stampede,they are irrational and reckless.

  8. The irony is,the more the BLM marches,makes ridiculous demands,and riots,the more people wise up and want guns,to protect themselves,because Ferguson,Baltimore,and Chicago all demonstrate how the police are not going to be there to protect people,property,or businesses. BLM is demonstrating they’re a wrecking crew,and rational people don’t want any part of that,and WILL defend their selves,property,etc.,using deadly force as necessary.

  9. During the LA riots of 1992,the police REFUSED to enter the riot zone to protect citizens,and Korean shopkeepers used “assault weapons” (Ruger Ranch rifles) to hold off the rioting mob that came to burn them and their families alive in their shops/homes. that’s just ONE good reason,not that we need ANY reason to own them.
    it also is justification for 30 round magazines,you need firepower to hold off a riot mob.
    Not that we need any justification.

  10. ‘there’s an inherent contradiction in what the two groups are after’

    This is just another example of the inherent contradiction in American liberalism beliefs(and too be fair American Conservatism is also inherently contradictory) but that has not stopped it yet. The silliness will continue.

    1. should also be an example to minority groups of how liberals really think about them.

  11. Good one, matt. Snappy

  12. I wonder if Reynolds would favor extending cannabis prohibition by the passing of laws to fine users.

  13. I’m almost certain at least 90% of BLM are typical liberals and gun control is one of their agendas. There’s no “clash” between those two groups.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.