As the Supreme Court contmeplates gun control.

Is gun control really racist?
By Jason Hall
First of all, I believe that guns have never harmed or killed a single individual. Having said that, I believe that it is the Nimrods who have misused this great tool to do harm and hurt others. A gun is no more dangerous than a very sharp butcher knife (which, by the way, does not make a sound when used), a metal baseball bat or any other items that can be used in the commission of a crime.
Guns are a tool and have been around for a very long time. Gunpowder was put into reinforced bamboo and ignited with a projectile inside; this was an ancient Chinese secret up to about the 16th century. Guns were a way of making the weak strong and able to protect themselves. Guns provided food, kept the wolves away from our cattle and helped us start a country. My point is that guns are a tool and not a problem. This brings me to the premise of this article.
Do gun control laws have a root in racism?
Now on to how all of this started.
Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in
1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks,
and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a
cane (you knew the French were involved some how). The Haitian Revolution in the 1790’s really upset the French folks in the Louisiana territory. They enacted laws that prohibited slaves and free blacks from owning a firearm or any other weapon at that time. For the slaves, a weapon would have been a TOOL used to gain their freedom, forcefully or otherwise. The free blacks needed weapons to provide for their families in the frontier and to protect themselves from animals and stupid people (don’t we all). The stupid people that I refer to, were the folks who would kidnap freed slaves and sell them back into slavery (it was difficult for the KKK to instill fear into the populace, with the populace returning fire). Even Native American Indians were not immune from the laws. Between 1630 and 1640 (not sure of exact date) Connecticut passed laws that only “friendly Indians” should be allowed to have firearms. Indeed only the friendlies. This thinking spilled over into the slave owning states in later year. Because of the threat of slave uprisings, these states enacted laws prohibiting blacks both free and slave from owning any weapons, including dogs. The whites thought that the free blacks and slaves would turn these dogs on them as a weapon. In Maryland, unlicensed dogs owned by free blacks were to be killed. Mississippi went one further and outlawed dog ownership by blacks altogether. Talk about harsh; I love my dogs more than I do my guns. On the other hand, a gun will not lick its butt and then your face. To prevent free blacks from moving to Savannah from other parts of Georgia, they decided to tax each person of color $100 per year. All because the establishment was afraid of freed blacks. This would explain why there were more free blacks that fought for the North as opposed to the number (which was small in comparison) of those who fought in the South.
There were still more laws enacted against blacks in America after the Civil War. Black Americans were prohibited from carrying firearms or bowie knives without a license. Although laws for both white and blacks were passed they were unequally enforced (guess who paid for that). Here is one blaring example of this unequal application of the law in the 20th century. Florida Supreme Court
Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a
conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because
the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:
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. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in
1901 and the 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 and in
practice has never been so applied.
Condoleezza Rice opposes gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor Birmingham police commissioner could have used it to disarm her father and others in 1963 as they protected themselves from the segregationists during the marches and protests. The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing killed a classmate of Condoleezza Rice, who at the time was only 9 years old. If anyone understands that human dignity needs to be defended even with the barrel of a gun it would be Dr. Rice.
There are other instances in which the white population was to be protected from the people of color having firearms. I am convinced that the best way to control a population is to take away their ability to stop a group of people from controlling them. A gun is a tool that has stopped a lot of violence from occurring to innocent people of all races. Guns truly are colorblind and equal. To empower people is giving them the ability to control their own destiny. Think of this article what you will but the bottom line is there will always be someone out to control another and with out the proper tools to defend your freedom with you will be enslaved. As an end note the dreaded NRA is opposed to gun control and registration also. Makes you think does it not.