Researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago have published a study that claims “racially biased conservative Whites” support the Second Amendment right to bear arms because they identify gun ownership with good citizenship and suggests mass shootings “may be a symptom of the country’s enduring legacy of racism.”

This analysis was published in the Washington Post by associate professor of political science Alexandra Filindra, Ph.D. student in political science Beyza Buyuker, and clinical assistant professor of political science Noah J. Kaplan of the University of Illinois at Chicago. They published their findings in the Post after two mass shootings occurred within one week of each other in Georgia and Colorado and amid a renewed national debate over gun control.

These researchers wanted to find out why “gun rights supporters are highly politically organized and unwavering on their views, while gun regulation supporters are not.”

“Our research found a reason for this difference: racial differences in rates of gun ownership and beliefs about guns,” the researchers wrote. “White Americans are far more likely than any other group to own firearms and oppose gun regulations. To them, guns are potent political symbols. For many people, especially White Americans, guns are integral to who they are as citizens and what it means to be a good citizen.”

On the other hand, gun control advocates “tend to think about guns in terms of preventing violence and the harms that guns can inflict,” the researchers state. Because “racially conservative Whites” — who are defined as scoring high on measures of anti-black prejudice — associate gun ownership with good citizenship, they “interpret attempts to restrict access to guns not as an effort to prevent gun violence but as an attack on their ability to express their patriotism.” (Read more from “Academic Researchers Claim Gun Rights Advocates Are Racist” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE and MeWe HERE

Former President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on bump stocks was placed on hold last week by a federal appeals court that determined the ban is probably unconstitutional. . .

The group Gun Owners of America and others sued the government, arguing the bump stock ban violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, the 14th Amendment’s right to due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to Bloomberg Law.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a federal district court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against the ban because they could likely prove the ban is unlawful.

In fact, the court explained the question of bump stock lawfulness should be answered — but not by unaccountable executives.

Whether ownership of a bump-stock device should be criminally punished is a question for our society. Indeed, the Las Vegas shooting sparked an intense national debate on the benefits and risks of bump-stock ownership. And because criminal laws are rooted in the community, the people determine for themselves—through their legislators—what is right or wrong. The executive enforces those determinations. It is not the role of the executive— particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong.

(Read more from “Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump-Era Bump Stock Ban, Says Ban Is Likely Unconstitutional” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE and MeWe HERE