[Levin]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly: you weren't offended, you were just saying the analogy is offensive on behalf of others?

Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems but I understood the comparison to be about Federal might winning out over local/state defiance. It may or may not be apt; however, I don't see why it is offensive just because the federal/state battle happened to be about segregation. It would be helpful if you could please explain why.

After your explanation, I have some follow-up question(s) for you: Do you think any analogy/story/topic involving blacks/segregation is offensive? If not, would you mind explaining the dividing line between what is and isn't offensive if an analogy/story/topic involves blacks/segregation? How does one know what one can and can't say about blacks/segregation without offending?

If the DC government actually had just reenacted a gun ban, then you're right, the analogy would have been apt, and you wouldn't have heard a peep from me. The DC government didn't do that. But some emotional extremism as it relates to guns caused people here to conjure up comparison to black children being water-hosed and Governor Wallace blocking the doors to black students -- all of which were done in direct defiance of federal law. Here, the DC government isn't defying anything: they're just doing as little as the Supreme Court said they had to. That's why it was offensive: our nation's racial history was opportunistically used to cover up a sloppy and emotional argument about owning guns.