Why Civil Rights and Gun Rights Are Inseparable

[Green Arrow]

via Reason (http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/10/why-civil-rights-and-gun-rights-are-inse):


In January 1960, Martin Luther King Jr., the rising star of the civil rights movement, and Robert Williams, president of the Monroe, North Carolina, branch of the NAACP, conducted an extraordinary public debate over the permissible use of violence on behalf of racial equality.

Williams was the instigator. In 1959, responding in fury to the sham acquittal of a white man who had raped a pregnant black woman, Williams declared, "Since the federal government will not bring a halt to lynching in the South, and since the so-called courts lynch our people legally, if it's necessary to stop lynching with lynching, then we must be willing to resort to that method."


One day later, after receiving a distraught phone call from NAACP Executive Secretary Roy Wilkins, who worried about the blowback from Williams' incendiary rhetoric, the North Carolina activist offered a modification. "Negroes have to defend themselves on the spot when they are attacked," Williams said.


Those comments led Williams and King to debate the use of violence. That King, a well-known proponent of nonviolent measures, took issue with Williams' apparent call for bloody justice is perhaps unsurprising. Then as now, King was widely regarded as a man of peace.


Yet as Fordham law professor Nicholas Johnson explains in his riveting new book Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms, Martin Luther King, just like virtually every other civil rights activist at the time (and earlier), readily distinguished between what King called "violence as a tool of advancement," and "violence exercised merely in self-defense." The former, King argued, had no place in the freedom movement. But the latter, he added, was of course perfectly legitimate.


"The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi," King argued in his debate with Williams. "When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support—he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect he shows."


King had no quarrel with black Americans keeping and bearing arms strictly in self-defense. In fact, King himself once applied for a permit to keep a concealed gun in his car in response to the many death threats he had received, though bigoted local officials denied him the permit on the arbitrary (and preposterous) ground that King lacked "good cause" to keep a gun at the ready.

I wish I could quote the whole article. It's quite good, and I have added the book to my reading list.

[Max Rockatansky]

The ability to defend oneself is essential to retaining one's liberty.

[nic34]

Be careful of trying to redefine MLK...

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2014/01/21/what-gun-advocates-get-wrong-about-dr-martin-lu/197665

[Codename Section]

People on both sides own MLK like they own Jesus. The only people who "know" are his wife and children and then he was probably still a mystery.

[Green Arrow]

Be careful of trying to redefine MLK...

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2014/01/21/what-gun-advocates-get-wrong-about-dr-martin-lu/197665

Did you read the article? The argument goes way beyond that one incident. Dr. King actually stated that violence for self-defense is okay. That he elected NOT to engage in violence for his own self-defense does not invalidate that he still thought it was valid for everyone else.

[1751_Texan]

Civil rights and the right to defend one's self are intrisinsically linked in that right to defend one's life, family, and property is a civil right.


Many conflate the right to bear arms as the same as the right to defend life, family and property. A firearm or any "arm" is but a tool...not the right.


In a 1000 years, a raygun maybe the preffered method to defend one's, family, or property...the "raygun" would be the weapon[arm] of choice du jour.

[Chris]

Civil rights and the right to defend one's self are intrisinsically linked in that right to defend one's life, family, and property is a civil right.


Many conflate the right to bear arms as the same as the right to defend life, family and property. A firearm or any "arm" is but a tool...not the right.


In a 1000 years, a raygun maybe the preffered method to defend one's, family, or property...the "raygun" would be the weapon[arm] of choice du jour.



The right to keep and bear arms is essential to defending yourself, especially against the state.

[1751_Texan]

The right to keep and bear arms is essential to defending yourself, especially against the state.

It is merely one tool. Not the only tool. I have no problem with your using a firearm for whatever reason you wish.

[Chris]

It is merely one tool. Not the only tool. I have no problem with your using a firearm for whatever reason you wish.

A tool we have a right to keep and bear for defense.

[Chris]

Another book you all might want to look at is one reviewed in Gun Control in Nazi Germany (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/audrey-d-kline/nazi-gun-control/)


There is no shortage of theories or writings related to the rise of the Third Reich and the subsequent Holocaust. Stephen Halbrook’s 2013 book, Gun Control in the Third Reich offers a compelling and important account of the role of gun prohibition in aiding Hitler’s goals of exterminating the Jews and other “enemies of the state.” While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.

Students of history as well as Second Amendment enthusiasts will find this a fascinating book and will find parallels between gun prohibition in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany, and attempts to prohibit types of gun ownership and implement other forms of gun prohibition in the United States today....

[Green Arrow]

Civil rights and the right to defend one's self are intrisinsically linked in that right to defend one's life, family, and property is a civil right.


Many conflate the right to bear arms as the same as the right to defend life, family and property. A firearm or any "arm" is but a tool...not the right.


In a 1000 years, a raygun maybe the preffered method to defend one's, family, or property...the "raygun" would be the weapon[arm] of choice du jour.

When the constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the tool becomes a right.

[Mainecoons]

Be careful of trying to redefine MLK...

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2014/01/21/what-gun-advocates-get-wrong-about-dr-martin-lu/197665

Be even more careful of crap sources.

Not you, Nic, those are the only places you get your "information."

:rofl:

[Green Arrow]

Be even more careful of crap sources.

Not you, Nic, those are the only places you get your "information."

:rofl:

Not in my thread.

[Don]

It is merely one tool. Not the only tool. I have no problem with your using a firearm for whatever reason you wish.

A firearm gives me equality with those who don't care about laws. It is a tool. My pen keyboard is my other tool. I use it to let my government and others know how I feel about my rights and what I expect from my representatives. Hopefully I will never be forced to resort to the other tool.

[KC]

I agree with the thesis as presented in the article, that Dr. King would not have advocated retaliation for self-defense in the struggle for civil rights but would have accepted it in other contexts. It's clear that nonviolent direct action was more of a tactic than a moral absolute for Dr. King.

[1751_Texan]

When the constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the tool becomes a right.

example.

Your avatar.

7352

The object in your avatar's hand is the tool. You, as the holder of said tool, is who is afforded that right. The right does not belong to your tool.

Furthermore, you can use a wholely different tool to defend yourself. The tool you select is irrelevant.

The 2nd Amendment affirms your right to arms...whether that be a .45, a sledgehammer, aluminum baseball bat, Nunchucks, throwing stars, sword...or any other tool of your choice.

[Peter1469]

example.

Your avatar.

7352

The object in your avatar's hand is the tool. You, as the holder of said tool, is who is afforded that right. The right does not belong to your tool.

Furthermore, you can use a wholely different tool to defend yourself. The tool you select is irrelevant.

The 2nd Amendment affirms your right to arms...whether that be a .45, a sledgehammer, aluminum baseball bat, Nunchucks, throwing stars, sword...or any other tool of your choice.

Well said, although I disagree with that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well said, although I disagree with that.

What, specifically, do you disagree with in his statement? Any thing can be a weapon, but the Second Amendment clearly states "bear arms". The context was firearms but is not restricted to those types of arms since the entire idea is based upon self-defense.

[Peter1469]

What, specifically, do you disagree with in his statement? Any thing can be a weapon, but the Second Amendment clearly states "bear arms". The context was firearms but is not restricted to those types of arms since the entire idea is based upon self-defense.

The second amendment didn't change the various militia acts already in place. It was meant very specifically with them in mind.

[nic34]

Be even more careful of crap sources.

Not you, Nic, those are the only places you get your "information."

:rofl:

How did I know it would be you that not only attacks the source, but also can not refute a single word it says?

You're still too easy coonzie.....

[Max Rockatansky]

The second amendment didn't change the various militia acts already in place. It was meant very specifically with them in mind.

It does address militias, but that comma is important since it means the right to bear arms is an individual right, not solely for a militia. Taken in context, the entire "Bill of Rights" are individual rights, not group rights.

[Chris]

It does address militias, but that comma is important since it means the right to bear arms is an individual right, not solely for a militia. Taken in context, the entire "Bill of Rights" are individual rights, not group rights.

Disagree. Back then rights were still group rights. The amendment itself clearly reads it's "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" that shall not be infringed. Individualism came along later.

[Common Sense]

nvmnd...

[Peter1469]

It does address militias, but that comma is important since it means the right to bear arms is an individual right, not solely for a militia. Taken in context, the entire "Bill of Rights" are individual rights, not group rights.


Back then, the whole people were the militia.

The whole people were males between 15-45 (some variation with the States).

And to break lots of hearts out there, carry conceal was never in the minds of the Founders.

[Max Rockatansky]

Back then, the whole people were the militia.

The whole people were males between 15-45 (some variation with the States).

And to break lots of hearts out there, carry conceal was never in the minds of the Founders.

In the days of the Founders, it wasn't against the law to carry a pistol under your clothing.