The House recently passed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, which is ostensibly intended to protect black Americans from racist whites who wish to lynch them. The measure, if passed, would specifically identify lynching as a federal hate crime that could carry a 30-year sentence.
As I wrote previously, this is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded virtue signal that will do absolutely nothing to protect black lives. It is a way for Democrats to give the illusion that they are fighting to safeguard black lives when, in reality, they are doing no such thing.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) was one of three members of Congress who voted against the bill. In an op-ed written for National Review, he explained:
I voted against a bill titled “The Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act” because the bill does not actually criminalize any conduct; the conduct addressed in the bill is already unlawful federally and in every state in the union, and I have strong resistance to empowering federal government to police thought. What the bill actually does is add the word “lynching” to existing hate-crime statutes while establishing a 30-year sentence for conspiracy to commit a “hate crime.” These hate crimes range the gamut, from race to religion and sexual orientation to gender identity.
This bill is yet another example of legislative deception by the Washington establishment on both sides of the aisle. Here, we have legislation that effectively does one thing while pushing a message only deliverable through the title of the bill that resonates with our hearts and coerces members of Congress to support it despite the actual effect. Who can oppose a bill titled the “anti-lynching” act? Do you know how many members of Congress said to me, “Gosh, I agree with you, but that’s just too brutal of a vote?” Why? Because it’s literally called the anti-lynching act.
As is typical, Roy is right. This bill only serves to make lynching “more illegal” but doesn’t actually help to defend anyone against a hate crime.
Shortly after the bill passed the House, I saw leftists celebrating it on social media. They touted the act as some major piece of legislation that would benefit the black community and other marginalized groups. I couldn’t help but notice that none of these people bothered to explain why such legislation was necessary or even how it would help black people. Indeed, it felt like yet another measure designed to make people feel good rather than actually accomplish something meaningful.
But there was another ironic piece to this puzzle that caught my attention.
The same people who cheered the passage of the anti-lynching legislation are the same people who vigorously support gun control laws that make it disproportionately more difficult for black and brown Americans to obtain firearms. As a black man in America, if I somehow found myself on the business end of a lynching effort, I would trust my Smith & Wesson to keep me out of harm’s way far more than I would trust anti-lynching legislation.
For argument’s sake, let us put aside the fact that the chances of an actual lynching happening in 2022 are about as low as the odds that President Joe Biden could talk nonstop for five minutes without a gaffe.
If we truly wished to discourage lynchings, would it not make more sense to ensure that responsible black American citizens are able to own firearms so they could protect themselves? Back in the days when lynchings were an actual threat, black people owned – and used – rifles, pistols, and other weapons to protect themselves. Indeed, the first gun control laws were specifically designed to ensure that black people did not possess the means to defend themselves against racist whites in the South.
But in 2022, Democrats are still preventing blacks from owning firearms by making it cost-prohibitive to purchase a gun and obtain a license to carry. In Maryland, one can pay up to $400 to get the training necessary to get a license. They have to spend about 16 hours taking firearm instruction classes.
For some, paying $400 and having to take 16 hours off from work might not be a big deal. But for black Americans living under the poverty line in cities like Baltimore, it is not quite so easy. One can find similar gun control measures in other cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and many others. In these areas, most of those who possess licenses are middle or upper-class white Americans. If the average black person living in these areas wishes to carry a firearm for self-protection, they typically are forced to do so illegally.
This is not an accident, folks.
If Democrats wanted “equity” when it comes to gun ownership, they would provide programs for low-income residents that would lower the cost of obtaining a license to carry. They make such offerings in other programs. Why not do the same for gun ownership?
The answer is simple: Democrats don’t want anyone to own firearms – but they especially don’t want minorities to become gun owners.
Going back to the lynching issue, if they truly cared about such a thing, Democrats would focus more on arming black Americans, so they could protect themselves from would-be lynchers. Instead, they are content with passing meaningless laws in Congress so they can pat themselves on the back and pretend they did something great for the black community. Meanwhile, they continue making sure that only certain people can exercise their Second Amendment rights. But are we really surprised by any of this?
