Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Why does the famous communist and railroader have to be brought out to reach into the past for a present argument or discussion. Your premise could have been stated without quoting a red from the past. It appears that the statement was issued to stoke the fires that were extinguished long ago

The problem with mob violence is that the mob by definition outnumbers the victims. You’re advocating vigilante justice and anarchy. I doubt you would feel safe in that environment.

Hogan -
I find it hard to believe that systematic black armed resistance would have helped them win the civil rights war. It would have leveled the playing field, no doubt, and caused white deaths in retribution, maybe even a new race-based civil war. Would we have preferred that?

If the Civil Rights movement taught us anything, it’s that fearlessness is most powerful at the wrong end of a gun.

The amendment giving us the right to bear arms is always subject, especially when checking a person’s criminal, psychological, and hitory reports.

If a person is pychologically unstable, has a criminal record, or is assoicated with an organized crime syndicate; he is DEFINITELY NOT allowed a firearm.

The last thing we need is a terrorist, organized maffia member, or a criminal psychotic running around with a shotgun or sniper rifle, let alone an automatic pistol.

Great link Matthew.
It shows exactly why the 2nd Amendment must be defended at all costs and why it must be honored as it was written and the rights of the people must not be infringed.
Without the 2nd Amendment the others would already be gone.

“You’re advocating vigilante justice and anarchy.”

How is protecting yourself and your family against those who wish to do harm, wrong?
If a group of people commit murder, then it is up to the police to solve that crime, but the victim has every right to use a firearm in order to prevent his own murder.

“If the Civil Rights movement taught us anything, it’s that fearlessness is most powerful at the wrong end of a gun.”

If I point a gun at an unarmed “fearless” person, I can kill that person without any worry about my own well-being, however, if that person were to be armed also, I must then think twice before even approaching that person.
You can be unarmed, fearless and dead all you want, I personally would rather be armed, protected and alive.

“The amendment giving us the right to bear arms is always subject”

Only to those who do not believe in the Constitution and choose to pick parts and pieces of it to support their agenda.

Matthew, I have really enjoyed your little trilogy and hope to read more.

Having grown up in the deep south perhaps I can shed a little light on this subject.
While I agree with the right of anyone to defend and protect themselves and their own, and I believe that included Black in the 50’s,I don’t think that if the Blacks had took up arms aginst the Whites back in the 50’s and early 60’s that we wouldn’t have made the progress in civil rights that was made.
All that would have accomplished is a race war that the Blacks could not have won at the time. They may have out numbered the Whites in some areas, like my rual Georgia county, but the Whites had them out gunned.
The only thing that would’ve been accomplished is even more bad feelings that would have, if not killed the civil rights movement, set it back into the dark ages.

Its not the wand its the magician. Arming black people in that era would not neccessarily have produced a successful opposition to white mobs. In all probability it would have led to isolated acts of resistance that let to even bloodier retaliation at the hands of white mobs. The key element for a resistance is solidarity. If the blacks of that era had stood collectively and strong for their beliefs, then they could have been armed with butter knives and slowed or even stopped mob voilence. But as stated in the article even black leaders and scholars noted that it was a fragmented resistance where those who acted courageously where matched by those who weren’t willing to fight.
It was only when strong leaders like ML King and MalcolmX rallied blacks to stand together and stand tall that real progress began to happen and I didn’t see either of them waving pistols about.

Finally, someone to show up that big phony Mohandas Ghandi. Nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, my ass! Shoot the m***********s, I say. If only we were all armed to the teeth, life would be beautiful and serene. I think that’s why the death rate among gang bangers is so low. It’s all the guns they carry around and use to “defend” themselves. Yes, that’s it. I feel a song coming on.

The purpose of this post is NOT to say that armed revolution was the answer, simply that individuals threatened by a mob of klansmen have every right to use deadly force as a deterrent and a preventative and to have the means to do so unmediated by the state acting under popular racial prejudice and paralyzed by the same to protect its residents. Armed self-defense may have served as a background to other better non-violent approaches. As the article notes, not even DR King would condemn the use of armed violence in self-defense.

The proper political measures to resist an unjust state varies; MLK chose a way that was effective and noble. He died by a privately owned firearm. He was denounced and demonized by free speech as well. But free speech empowered him the way armed self-defense empowered those who were threatened and had no other alternative.

It’s not a numbers game; but even in that regard though government monoploy of weapons loses, for governments as a whole kill far far more than private people do. And with just box cutters, a cult behind an aspiring government can kill thousnds if they hijack the right airplanes, with unarmed pilots.

Why are we defending blacks so often…?

Mental Wimp,
Do you realy think that bannig guns will keep the “gang bangers” or any other criminal type from having guns?
Every state in the union have laws aginst excons have firearms of any kind. I’ve noticed that doesn’t stop them from having them. If they’re going to commit crimes a law saying they cann’t have a gun isn’t going to stop them from getting one to use in the commission of that crime.
Neither will a baan on guns. Assult wepons were banned for around 10 years and the criminals still got them.
The only people gun control laws hurt are law abiding people.