Stanley, there is nothing bold about anything you propose. It is the same old contemptible servitude that the powerful have always imposed on the weak.
What I said to Mayor White goes double for you:
What I said to Mayor White goes double for you:
I wonder what these constituents would say if they were provided the truth about the racist origins and continued discriminatory application of the gun control measures you promulgate? Have you told them about the Slave Codes, that would allow a black man to be whipped (or worse) for possession of any kind of weapon? Or the post-Civil War Black Codes, designed to keep the newly emancipated from obtaining the means of defense during the heyday of Klan terror?
Why don't you circulate the following Louisiana statute among a few of the churches that you get your precinct walkers from, and see what they have to say?
"No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and endorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol."
If that doesn't make an impression, why not try the following offering from Mississippi?
"No freedman, free Negro, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind..."
Oh, hell, Mayor White, let's cut to the chase and clue them in to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857):
"Protection of the ‘absolute rights of individuals' to personal security, liberty, and private property is secured in part by ‘the right of bearing arms'--which with us is . . . practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation."
Tell them how racist Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney concluded that blacks, as legal scholar and civil rights attorney Professor Don B. Kates has recorded, "could not be ‘citizens,' because if they were, they would have the right to vote, to assemble, to speak on political subjects, to travel freely, and ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.'"
Now tell them how the City of Cleveland has neither the legal obligation nor the capability to protect them, and how your police will not arrive in most life-and-death situations in time to do anything but tape off the crime scene, cover the body and take a report. Then make sure you tell them that you don't credit them with having the judgement or maturity to be entrusted with the means of personal defense, in spite of landmark peer-reviewed studies from Florida State University and the University of Chicago that conclusively demonstrate the crime-deterring, life- saving value of guns in private, law-abiding hands.
I suspect you won't tell them any of this. And, because of the unique privileges and stature that you enjoy in your position, this is especially contemptible.
To have risen to such a prestigious and powerful position speaks of many positive and remarkable characteristics that you must be blessed with, including intelligence, determination and leadership. But a true leader would use his authority to preserve, protect and champion the freedoms of those he serves. How sad, how telling, and how ultimately treasonous that you have chosen to misapply yours for your own gain.
And rather than being a leader in liberty, you have opted to become just another one of the plantation's overseers.