By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article explores how the Second Amendment has historically been applied unevenly, particularly for Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities. From colonial times, gun laws and enforcement were used to control and disarm these groups, reinforcing racial hierarchies. The Second Amendment was often a “bribe” to the South to ensure its security, while also enabling the disarmament of Indigenous communities. Today, the enforcement of gun laws and who is considered a “good guy with a gun” still often falls along racial lines. This is shown through the disparate treatment of armed individuals and the disproportionate targeting of people of color in police shootings.
Read the original article here
The Second Amendment Was Never Meant for Everyone. The tragic death of Alex Pretti has sparked a painful awakening for many white Americans, a realization that Black gun owners have long understood: rights in America are not universally applied; they are conditional. This isn’t a new revelation; it’s a stark truth etched into the very fabric of our nation’s history. George Carlin, with his trademark bluntness, captured the essence of this reality: “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges.” His words echo the experience of marginalized communities, whose relationship with the Second Amendment has always been fraught with the understanding that the “right” to bear arms is a privilege granted or withheld based on one’s identity.
The fact that the Second Amendment was strategically utilized to maintain racial hierarchy is undeniable. Historical context is crucial to comprehending the Second Amendment’s inherent limitations. The very framing of the amendment was a political compromise, a “bribe” to the South to ensure its participation in the Union while safeguarding the institution of slavery. The amendment’s language indirectly ensured that slave patrols and local armed forces could remain intact and would be beyond the reach of federal intervention. This historical backdrop reveals a deeper truth: the Second Amendment was never about universal rights, but rather the preservation of white supremacy.
This conditional application of rights has manifested in numerous ways throughout American history. The violent disarmament of Indigenous communities is a glaring example. The removal of the Potawatomi people from Indiana, the Trail of Tears for the Cherokee, and the Wounded Knee massacre all serve as brutal reminders that, for these communities, guns were not a symbol of freedom but instruments of oppression, tools used to enforce the racial order. These acts of violence demonstrate the selective enforcement of rights, where the Second Amendment served to disarm those deemed a threat while empowering those in positions of authority. The idea of the “dual state,” where a “normative state” operates under set rules while a “prerogative state” wields unchecked power, comes to mind.
This legacy continues today, evident in the disproportionate policing and the ongoing targeting of communities of color. The disproportionate rates of officer-involved killings in Black communities, the discriminatory application of gun laws, and the historical use of law enforcement to suppress Black gun ownership paint a clear picture. The shift from overt gun bans to selective enforcement has created a system where “good guys with guns” are typically portrayed as white and middle-class, while “bad guys with guns” are disproportionately identified as Black, Brown, and poor. The tragic reality is that the consequences of these discriminatory practices show up in bodies.
The reactions to the deaths of Alex Pretti and Daniel Perry stand in stark contrast to the treatment of marginalized communities. While Pretti’s death caused a sense of vulnerability among many white Americans, those who have historically had their rights taken away knew exactly what was up. The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, and the praise given to the Bundy family, underscore the double standard inherent in the application of the Second Amendment. This disparate treatment reveals the true enforcement mechanism: the police, who decide in moments, whose rights will be recognized and whose will be ignored.
The implications of this truth extend far beyond gun rights. The fundamental realization is that rights are conditional and not inalienable. This is what marginalized communities have come to understand through lived experience. The right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and other civil liberties are also dependent on the whims of those in power. If these rights were truly secure, they would not be subject to the biases and prejudices of the institutions that are supposed to protect them. The ongoing erosion of civil rights and the willingness of some to sacrifice them for political gain highlight the fragility of these protections and the importance of active vigilance in defense of our freedoms.
The fight for true and equal rights demands more than just the declaration of these rights; it requires the creation of mechanisms that ensure their enforcement regardless of who holds power. This is the difference between a society where rights are privileges and one where they are truly guaranteed. The awareness of the conditionality of rights, as made evident by the death of Alex Pretti, presents an opportunity for a renewed commitment to equality and justice, ensuring that the promise of the Second Amendment and all other civil liberties is fully realized for all Americans.