About all I could ever add to a thread like this is to try and remind people that it did take the national guard to just get blacks into the public school system.
Whoa whoa whoa... you breezed through pages worth of context in that comment and you are also missing another critical distinction.
First, it did NOT take the national guard to get black kids into the public school system.
LONG before the "Little Rock 9" there were black kids in public schools ALL across the country WAY before
any law required it. Long before the "Little Rock 9" there were integrated public schools all across the country before any law required it.
SECOND, the Arkansas national guard were the ones who BLOCKED the students from entering Central High School.
President Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to escort the students into central high school after the Arkansas National Guard blocked them.
Third, these are PUBLIC schools. In this thread we are not talking about public schools or public property at all. Critical distinction. No one here is suggesting the government shouldn't be, by law, prohibited from discriminating.
If it were left up to the “people” of that time, some states would still have no schooling for any blacks.
Respectfully, this is also false/conjecture. You cannot honestly predict what would have happened over the course of 50 years. Suggestions that there would still be states that had "no schooling" for black people are pure conjecture. And I might remind you that even in 1957 there WAS schooling for black kids, in Little Rock, it was just segregated. Regardless I STILL reject the assertion that in 2010 there wouldn't be integrated schooling without government intrusion.
Hell some states would still have slaves (yea the fed had to stop that also).
More conjecture BUT now you have completely skewed the discussion away from a discussion of private property to a discussion of human rights. Owning another human and federal laws banning that stand the "freedom" test. Government telling you that you HAVE to allow someone on your property with a gun, or a loud obnoxious kid, or anything else of the sort do not serve individual rights, they blur individual rights.
So, no fed government controls?
another overstatement. No one is saying no federal government controls. I am saying on private property, where people make a choice to go or not go, to patronize, or not, its better to stand for freedom and let INDIVIDUALS decide what is best for them (both the private property store owner and the customers) than have the federal government get involved. The government should never get involved in situations that individuals have every capacity to deal with appropriately themselves.
When you can't walk down public roads with a sidearm. That is a PROBLEM the government needs to address. When you can't walk into 7-11 with a gun by the choice of the owner, that is a problem for individuals to address without government intervention.