this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
175 points (95.8% liked)

Not The Onion

19777 readers
1260 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] garth@sh.itjust.works 72 points 12 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 20 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

already happened because black panthers were getting armed

[–] tal@lemmy.today 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

The Black Panthers incident that you're referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

The Mulford Act is a 1967 California statute which prohibits public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit.[2] Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the law was initially crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party, which was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in what would later be termed copwatching.[3][4] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[5][6]

But also, going back prior to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

The earliest law prohibiting inexpensive handguns was enacted in Tennessee, in the form of the "Army and Navy Law", passed in 1879, shortly after the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1875; previous laws invalidated by the constitutional amendment had stated that black freedmen could not own or carry any manner of firearm. The Army and Navy Law prohibited the sale of "belt or pocket pistols, or revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or navy pistols", which were prohibitively expensive for black freedmen and poor whites to purchase.[21] These were large pistols in .36 caliber ("navy") or .44 caliber ("army"), and were the military issue cap and ball black-powder revolvers used during the Civil War by both Union and Confederate ground troops. The effect of the law was to restrict handgun possession to the upper economic classes.[22]

The next major attempt to regulate inexpensive firearms was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which used the "sporting purposes" test and a points system to exclude many small, inexpensive handguns which had been imported from European makers such as Röhm, located in Germany.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

🤔 not sure if helping me make point or criticising my point 🤷

[–] tal@lemmy.today 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Well...I'm agreeing that it happened and was a factor, but also pointing out that the "don't let black people have guns" practice predated the Black Panthers stuff by a considerable amount of time.

EDIT: Basically, a major concern in the US in the runup to the American Civil War was the prospect of a slave uprising. There were a lot of black people in the US who had been kept as slaves and were not super happy about the fact.

At about the same time, in Haiti, there had been such an uprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

Shortly after the revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haitian_massacre

The 1804 Haiti massacre was carried out by Haitian rebel soldiers, mostly former slaves, under orders from Jean-Jacques Dessalines[1][2][3][4] against much of the remaining European population in Haiti, which mainly included French Colonists.[5][6] The Haitian Revolution defeated the French army in November 1803 and the Haitian Declaration of Independence happened on 1 January 1804.[7]

Throughout the early-to-mid nineteenth century, the events of the massacre were well known in the United States. Additionally, many Saint Domingue refugees moved from Saint-Domingue to the U.S., settling in New Orleans, Charleston, New York, Baltimore, and other coastal cities. These events spurred fears of potential uprisings in the Southern U.S. and they also polarized public opinion on the question of the abolition of slavery.[9][10]

At the time of the American Civil War, a major pretext for Southern whites, most of whom did not own slaves, to support slave owners (and ultimately fight for the Confederacy) was fear of a slave uprising similar to the Haitian Revolution.[34] The perceived failure of abolition in Haiti and Jamaica were explicitly referred to in Confederate discourse as a reason for secession.[35] The slave revolt was a prominent theme in the discourse of Southern political leaders and had influenced U.S. public opinion since the events took place. Historian Kevin Julius writes:

As abolitionists loudly proclaimed that "All men are created equal", echoes of armed slave insurrections and racial genocide sounded in Southern ears. Much of their resentment towards the abolitionists can be seen as a reaction to the events in Haiti.[9]

In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election of 1860, Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote "I remember the horrors of St. Domingo" and said that the election "will determine whether anything like this is to be visited upon our own southern countrymen."[10]

Abolitionists recognized the strength of this argument on public opinion in both the North and South. In correspondence to the New York Times in September 1861 (during the war), an abolitionist named J. B. Lyon addressed this as a prominent argument of his opponents:

We don't know any better than to imagine that emancipation would result in the utter extinction of civilization in the South, because the slave-holders, and those in their interest, have persistently told us ... and they always instance the 'horrors of St. Domingo.'[36]

Lyon argued, however, that the abolition of slavery in the various Caribbean colonies of the European empires before the 1860s showed that an end to slavery could be achieved peacefully.[37]

John Brown attempted to induce such a slave revolt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown%27s_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry

From October 16th to 18th, 1859, American abolitionist John Brown attempted to initiate a slave revolt in Southern states by raiding an armory[nb 1] in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). The raid is frequently cited as one of the primary causes of the American Civil War.[3]

And you had Nat Turner's Rebellion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_Rebellion

Nat Turner's Rebellion, historically known as the Southampton Insurrection, was a slave rebellion that took place in Southampton County, Virginia, in August 1831. Led by Nat Turner, the rebels, made up of enslaved African Americans, killed between 55 and 65 White people, making it the deadliest slave revolt for the latter racial group in U.S. history.

So you have the situation after the American Civil War where you have a lot of now-free black people who the US Constitution guarantees the right to arms...and a lot of white people really worried about what happens if they get ahold of said arms. They went out and tried to figure out whatever loopholes they could to make sure that blacks didn't have access to firearms.