You should probably oppose or support restrictions in accordance with whether or not they make sense, irrespective of the debatable motives of their inception.
In regards to the motives of their inception, it seems like a bit of leap to go from "armed black militias patrolling streets" and "an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitol on May 2, 1967" to then saying that the resulting anti-gun legislation was necessarily inherently racist. Every time a white kid shoots up a school and it leads to further gun restrictions, do you assume that this is because of legislator's anti-whiteness? Almost every school shooter/mass shooter is white, and there have been all sorts of gun restrictions imposed as a consequence of these events. In fact, wasn't there JUST a band of mostly white men who entered the Capitol, which has also led to suggestions for increased legislation against firearms? Is the resulting legislation that comes from that going to be anti-white?
In regards to the motives of their inception, it seems like a bit of leap to go from "armed black militias patrolling streets" and "an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitol on May 2, 1967" to then saying that the resulting anti-gun legislation was necessarily inherently racist. Every time a white kid shoots up a school and it leads to further gun restrictions, do you assume that this is because of legislator's anti-whiteness? Almost every school shooter/mass shooter is white, and there have been all sorts of gun restrictions imposed as a consequence of these events. In fact, wasn't there JUST a band of mostly white men who entered the Capitol, which has also led to suggestions for increased legislation against firearms? Is the resulting legislation that comes from that going to be anti-white?