Earlier today, I advocated an anti-gun stance on another thread regarding recent shootings in Chicago. Some thought that I was explicitly stating that banning guns would solve the violence in Chicago and throughout the country. That wasn't really my point... my point began about 2 months ago, when my wife brought up that she wanted to go to a shooting range. Our conversation that day triggered some unexplained emotions in me. As a teenager, I had a penchant for guns. My brothers had a penchant for guns. My dad had a penchant for guns. At various point in my preteen and teenage years, I have owned a bb gun, a .22 caliber rifle, a .25 caliber handgun, a .9 millimeter handgun, a .40 caliber handgun and an AK-47. I have used each of these guns on several occasions, many times not in the most respectful of ways. In addition, I have lost 1 brother to gun violence and 14 friends over the years. My conversation with my wife, 20 years after I pulled my last trigger, found me with a much different point of view. I just couldn't fathom what any rational and sane person could even see in a gun. In my mind, guns were created one purpose and on purpose only - violence. I just can not see the sexiness in that. My mind jogged back to the words of my uncle who taught me how to drive. Before he would let me behind the wheel, he would always tell me and I had to repeat it before I took off - "A car is not a toy." A gun is not a toy. Of course, people go to shooting ranges and shoot them as recreation but again, a gun is not a toy. So today, I used a thread about gun violence to promote my notion of banning guns - of course I know this isn't a viable option. As a result, I was met with relatively stiff opposition to this notion, which in turn made me think even deeper into guns and how passionately people feel about them in American society. I asked myself why is talk of banning guns so emotionally charged? Recently, I was made aware that one of the key reasons the 2nd amendment was established was to suppress slave insurrections. As a descendant of slaves, of course this discovery did not sit too well with me. All this time, unbeknownst to me, the amendment that fires Americans up so emotionally as their "right" as citizens was enacted in part to put down slave revolts and Indian uprising. Wow! My mind began to think more. On Destee, there are plenty of discussions about the European's global path of carnage in which groups of indigenous people, both in Africa and the Americas, were killed, conquered, subjugated, kidnapped, enslaved, evicted and colonized. This path to white supremacy and European cultural hegemony was forged most distinctively with the vicious bite of the bullet. Europeans and Americans were able to have their way with the world's citizens because they held a military and technological advantage over those with mere bow and arrows, swords, spears, clubs and blowguns. It then became apparent for me that one of the reasons the gun is so loved, cherished and protected in American society and culture is it almost single-handedly accounts for the white American and European ascendency to the upper echelons of the global hierarchy. It is a cultural icon of white supremacy and a symbol of colored people's death. No wonder, I thought, that Americans don't take to kindly to talk about banning it. That would be un-American. The argument is that the gun is for protection. However, I began to ask if the word "protection" is thrown around to freely. I mean how often do you hear about Black folks robbing white folks and killing them? Most Black folks wouldn't even think of it for fear of getting caught and we all know what would happen if we got caught for murdering white folks. Does it happen? Yes, but a Black person is usually on the receiving end of another Black person's bullet. Of course, I know it wouldn't happen this way but just think - if no one had access to guns, there would be no need for guns to protect from someone without a gun. The argument is that the criminals would just get guns from the black market. Whether that be the case or not, it appears as if gun ownership is etched in the American psyche as a way to protect yourself. I can't help to ask is it to protect against Black insurrection. It was through the gun that people were conquered, could there still be a collective memory fear that if guns were taken away, White America would lose some advantage? A fear that they would lose the very tool that established them as the dominant group and present day title holders of the United States. Either way, clearly without guns America as we know it today would have not been possible. Where does that leave Black folks in the gun decision? Every person has their right to where they choose to hang their hat, but for me, I look at it like this: 1. Guns were made for violence, 2. Guns were used to enslave Africans and take the Indian's land, 3. The 2nd Amendment gave white folks to bare arms to put down freedom seeking slave insurrections and crush justifiable Indian uprisings attempting to get the interlopers off of their land, 4. The 2nd Amendment gives one the right to carry a gun for the purpose of self-defense like in the Trayvon Martin case (we know it was murder but its was ruled justifiable homicide due to self-defense), 5. Guns were used in white folks bloody trail of dead bodies, 6. Ifa said owning a gun is not a good idea for me. Ifa said that if I use a gun for protection, it would be me that the gun will be used on. What do you say Black folks?