The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who called themselves the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, until they decided that they also want so-called "assault weapons" banned, is very fond of accusing gun rights advocates of "racism"--but apparently not at all fond of presenting evidence for these charges, judging by the fact that they almost never do (almost as if they have no evidence). They have, in fact, dismissed pro-rights arguments on the grounds that the person articulating those arguments is white. White=wrong, apparently, although their "About Us" page and "Meet the CSGV Stafff" video certainly appear to be on the pale side.
They also paint a picture of volunteer border security "Minuteman" organizations as "vigilante" hate groups.
That's why it came as something of a shock to this correspondent that during a Twitter debate, CSGV took the bizarre position that one cannot argue that the seizure by conquest of the North American continent from Native Americans (perhaps with the morally egregious aid of biological warfare) was morally wrong, without being "oppose[d to] the founding of this nation." Thinking that this was too crazy a position even for CSGV, I sought clarification:
Wait a second--I can't condemn the theft of Native Americans' land without "oppos[ing] the founding of this nation"?
The answer was as unambiguous as it is startling:
Pretty much, yes, because this nation could NOT have been founded without forcefully confiscating said land.
And that brings up another question. CSGV also likes to redefine patriotism to mean blind obedience to the government, and blind faith in the courts and political system of "our democracy" (the term they invariably use to describe our republic). They, in short, want to portray themselves as the "patriots," and those of us who would fight tyranny in this country as the "traitors." So . . . do they "oppose the founding of this nation," or do they think that some kind of superiority inherent to European whiteness conferred a right to seize the continent by force of arms?
So where do you fall on this--do you "oppose the founding of this nation," or do you think stealing a continent was moral?
Perhaps by then belatedly realizing that they had painted themselves into a rather unsavory corner, they now beat a hasty, clumsy and ignominious retreat:
We have no positions on historical questions unrelated to modern gun violence.
Wow--moral cowardice just doesn't get much more cowardly than that dodge of the question. And it also came rather late, because by then, they had taken a position--the position that to believe that the Native Americans were grievously wronged is somehow "unpatriotic."
CSGV wants to be seen as "protector of minorities," no matter how much revision of history that requires, and no matter how clearly their favored policies disproportionately disarm the very people they claim to "protect." Now, Native Americans have a brand new reason to ask CSGV some pointed questions about just whose side they are really on.