The Racist Roots of Gun Control
Measures restricting gun ownership still disproportionately harm black and brown people, says Maj Toure, founder of "Black Guns Matter."

Media scream, "Too many people have guns!"
Second Amendment activist Maj Toure says more people should carry guns.
"Everybody should be walking around," he says in my new video, "like, 'Oh man, I left my gun in the house. Let me go back and get it.' It should be as normal as a cellphone."
Activists and some politicians want gun control.
Toure says, "All gun control is racist!"
All?
"It was literally started to stop black people from having the means to defend themselves."
He's right. In the 1600s, American colonies had rules against blacks owning guns.
"It's a good thing we don't like being told what human rights we have," says Toure. "I'm an American. I go by the Constitution."
Few Americans know that anti-slavery hero Harriet Tubman carried a gun most of the time.
"She needed to," says Toure. "If it wasn't for strong women like Harriet Tubman, liberty-minded people saying, nah, [slavery] is not cool, not OK, a contradiction of the Founding Fathers, what they wrote down [not what they all did, but what they wrote down]. She wouldn't have had the bravery to oppose that during a time when opposition meant death. More people should think about that right."
What about today? I ask, "Is gun control still racist?"
"Absolutely!" he says. "Look at the outcome. Take California…[you have to get] a state-issued license to carry. If you live in Oakland, Compton, in Los Angeles County, the chances of you getting a license, even though the Second Amendment is clear, it's very little. But if you live in Brentwood, Orange County, Beverly Hills, the issue rate for that license to carry goes up. Which one of those areas is more predominantly black and brown people?"
Similarly, "Who's arrested more for firearms possession? Black and brown folks…the outcome being this group of people being disproportionately impacted by the racist practice of gun control."
That's why he started "Black Guns Matter," to encourage responsible gun ownership in black and brown communities. His group runs firearms training classes.
"The narrative that anyone with a firearm is a bad guy is pervasive. Especially if you are in an urban environment and if you happen to be black….White folks don't [have] to articulate their position in the same way….Black Guns Matter speaks to the problem.
"We saw that you guys are lying to the people. You're telling this group of people, no, that's not for you. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say anything about race. Government does not grant or take away these rights. So, for me it was more about informing. Black Guns Matter is about education. When you see that your people [have] been lied to, you [are] a sucker if you don't inform them."
A recent Pew study found roughly 24 percent of African Americans own guns now.
Toure says that's not enough, "Every American should be exercising their human right to self-defense….If the trend, which is true, continues, that there are more firearms owners, safe and responsible firearms owners, that means less crime. I absolutely want more people to have firearms…catchphrases like: 'An armed society is a polite society.' Absolutely….We need to give all Americans that level of empowerment. And with that empowerment comes responsibilities. That's why we present [Black Guns Matter] classes for everyone for free. We go over grip stance, side alignment, sight picture, general nomenclature…safety."
"Should there be any rules?" I ask. "Should untrained people have to take a class?"
"No," he says. "I don't rely on the state to determine what's safe. Most law enforcement officers don't train. These are rights. The Bill of Rights are rights granted by your creator, not granted by government….A part of this culture is being safe and responsible and getting training. We can do that….So, no, the state is not in control of that. We are, 'we the people.'"
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
2nd Amendment applies to every citizen period. The guy has a point.
Though unfortunately he has to resort to the stupid line that "The Bill of Rights are rights granted by your creator".
What is so stupid about that? Creator is God, or natural human rights if you want to keep explicit religion out of it.
Perhaps you are confusing that with "granted by government".
The guvnah is one of those statist fucks who think there are no such things as natural rights.
His god is government.
I am not a statist. I think it is useful to pretend that there are such things as natural rights.
Rights are an obvious and convenient fiction.
The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government to prevent it from curtailing what the founders of the country viewed as natural human rights endowed upon everyone by their creator, so, he's not incorrect.
Of course, Stossel implies natural rights, but an insecure pedant like you can't help himself when his frail sensibilities are mildly challenged. Nobody gives a shit that you're an atheist, fuckstick.
It seems that the one with heightened sensibilities here is you, fuckwit. How much better if someone could come up with an argument in favour of rights that didn't involve pretending that fictions are real. In fact, I can. It's clear that those societies which adhere to these broad slew of fictions fare better than those that don't. But this is pragmatic - and dogmatic clowns like you don't tend to be reality-orientated.
The Bill of Rights limits the government's imposition on your rights granted by your creator, God.
Sorry, not sorry.
your rights granted by your creator, God.
Prove it.
Would your life be worth living without your insufferable smugness?
(And you must prove it by showing your work)
If you find my alleged smugness insufferable, I suggest you fuck off.
Hahahahaha! Your smugness is palpable. What I allege is that your sense of superiority is the only thing that makes your life worthwhile.
No need to reply. Just something to think about in the new year.
Happy New Year.
What I allege is that your sense of superiority is the only thing that makes your life worthwhile.
Which allegation is untrue, and says more about your inability to handle a position you instinctively disagree with than any supposed smugness on my part.
I won't deny a sense of superiority, but that's a function of observing posters like you.
I have no idea why someone with a "sense of superiority" from observing posters like one would find in a place like this, where such posters are commonplace, would come here other than to feed that sense of superiority. Which fully supports my original, um, allegation.
As far as my "inability to handle" whatever YOU posit I am disagreeing with, I've endured religious zealots AND materialist buffoons who believe they KNOW everything since high school, and I can't say it troubles me in the least.
You're on a journey, buster. Enjoy the ride.
You stated this thread with the statement "the stupid line that "The Bill of Rights are rights granted by your creator" and that "Rights are an obvious and convenient fiction." Either you claim no rights for yourself or you are just a troll who is here to provoke; not to stimulate dialogue, but to bring about outrage that trolls seem to thrive on.
I claim no externally sourced rights for myself or anyone else.
Take it a step further. And before I go further, let me make it abundantly clear that I am in no way sarcastic when I pitch this. I am serious as a heart attack that this is something we should absolutely do as a society:
Not only should everyone have a gun, the United States government should issue everyone a gun. Every single man, woman, and child should be presented with a firearm, and ammo, in the United States at birth (or naturalized citizenship). Make its serial number their social security number. "Congratulations mom and dad! So, here's the baby's birth certificate. Did you want a .380, a 9mm or a .45 for him?"
When they get to a certain age... I don't know, 2nd or 3rd grade I guess, mom and dad take him and his gun to the first day of school for junior's introduction into marksmanship, maintenance, and gun safety.
After they graduate, they can do with it as they please. Keep it, carry it, sell it, destroy it - but every single person on the planet knows that you never - ever - screw with an American citizen within their own borders, because you KNOW he probably has a gun and knows how to use it. And if you misuse it or negligently keep it yourself (remember, it's got your SSN on it), oof the civil/criminal penalties for that...
At best, a criminal preying on a victim would get to hope that he (or more importantly, she) doesn't have it on him (or her) at the time. But, something tells me that most of them would. And that those who eschew it wouldn't exactly advertise that fact.
I would absolutely, 100% dead serious, consider the State provision of firearms to its citizens a proper purpose of government and a legitimate use of government spending.
I want the .380. Just saying.
Also, issue a pistol to all sentenced to prison, with one bullet.
Nope.
And where would the government get those guns?
Oh, right, they'd steal taxes to pay for them. And open up the floodgates for every possible "free" supplies everyone else will want -- food, shelter, clothing, transportation, jobs.
No thanks.
Fine, you don't get one. And we let everyone know it.
Again, you assume you have the right to control everyone else. My having, or not having, a gun is absolutely NONE of your business. Get that fucking statist control-freak attitude out of your head. Get some principles. Learn what MYOB stands for.
I already said that because you're being such a fag about that fine - nobody will give you a gun and everyone will know you're a helpless lamb ripe for the slaughter. What more do you want, SGT?
You are impossible to please. Like you never stopped being a teenage girl about literally everything.
Is that a threat? Please, feel free to let everyone know I didn't accept a State-mandated pistol. You can tell them I haven't been vaccinated for COVID either while you're at it, you spineless leftist asshat.
I don't need to resort to threats. He's proud of it!
Oh, right, they'd steal taxes to pay for them. And open up the floodgates for every possible "free" supplies everyone else will want -- food, shelter, clothing, transportation, jobs.
For all the stupid you generate, this is the good call. Just like with the race-baiting retardation, the government handing everyone a gun takes away the ability to refute the government handing other people other things. Trading your soul for a little security.
If the government provides you with the gun and education how to use it by mandate, why *can't* it teach/mandate girls to abort their children or queers to mutilate themselves? Sure, there's an economic case to be had that responsible gun ownership might be a part of *s*tate education programs, but those states can choose to use those guns in those programs or solicit donations to give donor guns to everyone who successfully completes, but there are plenty of countries that mandate a standing, armed citizenry who serves/defends "their" government. This ain't one of them.
What, no 38 option?
Are we revolver people second class citizens?
😀 😀
"I just haven't seen one of those in a long time. I'll bet the kid's got an automatic."
revolver people
"Self-loading is really more of a spectrum." - Taurus
Everything the democrats do is grounded in racism.
Don't forget to mention that heavy topping/cover of Self-Projection.
Everything they are - is everyone else's fault.
Yes, they also don’t believe in accountability.
Lets see here.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-race-ethnicity-and-education/
Black Voters 83% Democrat.
The only 'race' taking away 'Guns' are Black voters themselves.
Maybe try voting for the Party that has at least some historical honor in the US Constitution. Eh?
And another fun-fact. Republican literally fought a Civil War with the Democrats to end slavery.
Something, something about the biggest 'enemy' being the 'enemy within.
Yeah, but I've been told that the parties switched, magically, in the 1960s.
Magically? No. Political realignments do happen.
It seems reasonable that if you're some southern racist cracker who's not got over his grandpappy losing the Civil War and who has been a Democrat from birth, and you find that the party you support has given civil rights to nigrahs and the party you previously didn't support now welcomes you with promises to crack down on nigrahs and hippies, why, you might well change your allegiance.
There were only 3 elected polititions that switched from dem to rep.
How about voters?
The voters that continued to elect Democrats to Congress and governorships for 30+ more years?
Voters elected INCUMBENTS. Southerners have always favored incumbents which is why Southern incumbents also dominated committee chairs from 1900 on. Which also reinforces why they continued to get reelected. Incumbents who are also committee chairs or party powers don't get defeated in elections
There were five incumbents in the House who switched parties in 1995 - when party control of the House changed for the first time post-Ww2.
Dozens more who switched parties - in office at the state level - in order to challenge an incumbent at the federal level.
It's almost like you're an idiot
Or maybe gun control is not racist enough.
A few years ago I compiled and analyzed data for gun-related deaths. I sorted out murders from suicides and accidents, and I combined demographics across the states.
The single outstanding correlation of gun murder was with race, specifically percent black people.
Disclaimer: I do not advocate for gun control (except as it affects aiming). But the nannies who claim to be motivated by saving lives could achieve more by outlawing black residents, most specifically young black males. (And yes, this is absurdly anti-liberty, but that never stopped the left before.)
Or maybe gun control is not racist enough.
It's a retarded, non-sequitur categorical error.
Like saying seatbelt laws are racist. Short is not a race. Fat is not a race. Racially disparate outcomes from seat belts aren't inherently racist.
In the first few years of seat belt laws, there may've been an issue where cheaper cars didn't have seatbelts, poor people didn't have them and got pulled over more often, and black people tended to be more poor. But 30, 40, 50 yrs. down the line and the price of a car has ballooned well past the cost of adding seatbelts several times and you're engaging in confabulation and/or retconning history and it doesn't substantially change whether seatbelt laws should continue to be enforced or not.
""Like saying seatbelt laws are racist""
No one used black people as an excuse to pass a seatbelt law.
No one used black people as an excuse to pass a seatbelt law.
You do know what the word "excuse" means, right?
Leftists love gun control because it's easier to control unarmed masses than those with guns, and yes, it's racist.
However, since the mid-1960's with integration becoming a reality, the holier-than-thou leftists had to be more subtle in their racism.
So, they invented ideas like gun control (read gun confiscation) to ensure minorities and women are unarmed.
Additionally, the leftists who support abortion, keep most of the abortion mills in...yes, you guessed it, black neighborhoods.
Want more?
How about education?
Leftists, especially their politicians, support teachers' unions and failed public education to keep minorities illiterate or near illiterate while demanding more money and benefits to "teachers," while simultaneously supporting less responsibility and accountability.
Want to take a good look at racism in the US?
Look no further than the American left's agenda.
yes, it's racist
No. It's not. Fuck you. This is literally, specifically the same bullshit that utterly destroyed the police *reform* movement and lead directly to black guys being forced to toss aside barricades outside the CHAZ while white kids yell at and tried to stop them.
If a White Nazi removes a gun from a White, German, Christian Political Dissident, it's gun control. If a British Bobby removes a knife from the hands of a Welsh citizen, it's goddamned gun/arms control. It dates back to the Greeks, Egyptians and before. Race has fuck all to do with it.
The idea that it's racist or sexist is to distract you from their exercise of control. You're contributing to the divisive leftist narrative by affirming the patently false racist/sexist roots.
More BS from a liberal ignoring the reality of the racist and oppressive left.
Refute my argument.
Show me where I'm wrong instead of engaging your insane liberal rant.
I showed you where it's wrong. Gun, and arms, control predates modern and even fairly antiquated notions of race.
Do you need specific names? Randy Weaver, Cody Wilson, Dennis Tuttle, Dominic Black... would gun control be more wrong if they were black? Would the Nickel Ride Freddie Gray got be OK if he were white? If you don't think so, then race has fuck all to do with it. If you do, then *you're* the one making this about race, not them, not the prosecutors, political activists, and state agents pursuing them.
It's specifically not a liberal argument, it's an objective one. You're the moron parroting racist, leftist narratives back to slightly-more-right race-baiters and historical/cultural grievance purveyors like an NPC.
FFS, half the reason the slave trade worked in Africa was because Europeans could trade guns to chieftains and warlords who could raid the tribes and villages around them. The infamous, counterfactual re-narration of the Dahomey Amazons illustrates this perfectly. GTFO with the "Gun Control Is Racist/Sexist." retardation of yourself and others.
In the 1600s, American colonies had rules against blacks owning guns.
Done. Out. Fuck you. I'm not reading any further. I don't care if your guest has a point about gun control. It doesn't legitimize this bald-faced dishonesty. Taking a log off the gun control fire and tossing it onto The 1619 Project/dishonest social(ist) media narrative fire is not an improvement.
The Crown may've had laws. The settlements may've had rules. None of them were against "blacks". None of them were specifically against race as we know it in a modern conception. To be clear, before the signing of the DOI, Maryland had laws banning *Catholics* from owning guns. Papal/Royal decrees back to the Dark Ages forbade the use of crossbows by The Church or Crown's own subjects. The idea that The Crown or Colonies banned all blacks as blacks exceptionally and not Indigenous Americans or "Indians" or other outsiders is just stupid. All of this is fairly common knowledge that even my kids could discover and grok in less than 2 min. of web searching. Even just 2 min. of conceptualizing settlements in the colonial era reveals how retarded the notion is.
The idea that gun control is racist in origin is trading one dishonest, divisive, revisionist narrative for another. Trading firearm control for social narrative control. Something that, with the modern state of the internet and media, no one should have to accept. Fuck you for doing it.
""In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:
That no man do sell or give any Indians any piece, shot, or powder, or any other arms offensive or defensive, upon pain of being held a traitor to the colony and of being hanged as soon as the fact is proved, without all redemption.""
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/america-history-gun-control-supreme-court/674985/
Still sounds racist.
Still sounds racist.
That's because, at best, you're stupid and incapable of viewing history through any lens except your exceptionally modern, narrow, race-baiting retardation. You do know that neither Powhatan (which was a Confederacy of tribes) nor Indian (a misnomer for a different nationality) is a race and especially was not at the time, right? That the Powhatan Confederacy, not the Governor of Jamestown or even The Crown, would've been the major regional power and their attacks on the colonists occupying territory they (the natives) didn't use would represent initiation of aggression, right? You know that even an 8 yrs. old with a grammar school education from 50 yrs. ago could spend about 10 min. thinking on the issue and come up with a better, more accurate conclusion than your "It sounds like it's because of racism.", right?
So, the question becomes why you would conflate the criminalization of providing material support to the perpetrators of massacres and the killing of innocent people with the criminalization of people defending themselves in their own homes? Moreover, why would you do it under the false flag of racism? It would seem that craven stupidity, is the "good" option juxtaposed against insanely racist malice.
The idea that the reason they forbade the selling of weapons to natives because they didn't want the colonists or the natives defending themselves because of the color of their skin is about as utterly dishonest and morally reprehensible a revision as possible. Thanks and fuck you for providing a sterling example of the insidiousness to which I was referring.
I can't believe no-one's mentioned the Mulford Act yet, a clear piece of racist gun control legislation.
On a related note.
https://www.newsweek.com/you-can-have-gun-control-you-can-defang-police-you-cant-do-both-opinion-1794484
Yet none of the shootings or murders committed by repeat offenders have inspired any policy changes aimed at doing more to incapacitate armed criminals. The legally justified shooting of Adam Toledo, however, did lead to a new policy—one restricting foot pursuits by police.
The message sent to police by the treatment of officer Stillman is clear. But so is the choice that much of the American Left must make: You can either have effective gun control, or you can defang police and continue to soften the criminal justice system. But you can't have both.