Slog Comments
Slavery Might Not Have Happened If Black Americans Had Been Given Right to Bear Arms
1
Well duh. Conservatism is entirely based on a victim mentality that seeks to absolve the adhearant from any responsibility for their actions, or self-introspection. They're always the victim. It's always someone else's fault. And their moral outrage is like a drug to them.
3
They would have needed the guns in Africa where Black men were selling Black men to the White buyers.
4
“I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history,” Ward added.
Or, uh, I don't know... maybe Martin Luther King WOULD be alive today if we did a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people who are determined to use them to kill people. The fact that he doesn't see the incongruity of referencing a guy who was shot down in a cold blooded assassination to defend the right for everyone to have a gun is... telling.
Or, uh, I don't know... maybe Martin Luther King WOULD be alive today if we did a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people who are determined to use them to kill people. The fact that he doesn't see the incongruity of referencing a guy who was shot down in a cold blooded assassination to defend the right for everyone to have a gun is... telling.
5
I love how every week they have a new argument, always dumber than the last. It's like your favorite trainwreck TV show.
9
And I bet Africans wouldn't have become slaves if they had jet packs to escape the slavers.
What other means can we come up with in which Africans could have escaped slavery, in wildly speculative and history-independent scenarios?
What other means can we come up with in which Africans could have escaped slavery, in wildly speculative and history-independent scenarios?
10
It doesn't show that they think they're an oppressed minority. It shows the same fallacy they've been promoting all along: that a gun is power, that an individual if armed can defeat evil. Whether that evil is a criminal, a tyrannical government or, apparently, a slave-owning society.
There's a strain of victimhood running through conservatism in general (it's implicit in a lot of Fox News rhetoric), but I don't see this argument as equating gun owners to slaves.
There's a strain of victimhood running through conservatism in general (it's implicit in a lot of Fox News rhetoric), but I don't see this argument as equating gun owners to slaves.
11
The Black Panthers were successful in using the 2nd amendment to achieve true equality for black Americans not through speeches, appeals or marches, but through technological parity. Namely, you shoot us, we shoot you. I think it worked and was the beginning of a 30 year process that ended up with the respect needed to put Barack Obama in the White House.
12
@11 - Right, and the non-violent MLK's martyrdom didn't contribute Barak Obama's presidency at all! Or the non-violent Civil Rights movement! Nah, it was all because people were afraid of armed black people.
:|
:|
13
I'm thinking maybe Ward shouldn't have seen "D'Jango, Unchained" right before making this asinine statement.
14
@11 The Black Panther Party succeeded in getting us stricter gun laws from Sacramento to Albany. Ironic, ain't it?
15
Conservatives have been moving more and more into the historically left/liberal terrain of whining and victimhood for a couple of decades. Now everyone's a bitchy aggrieved minority. Even bankers will pick up on it soon, though who knows, they probably already are going on CNBC moaning about being disrespected as a class. What a hopeless situation.
16
@11, what a miserable attempt to re-write history, Fox News was still this election cycle trying to use fear of black people to swindle people into voting for a ticket that didn't care about their interests. It's not working anymore. The RNC is going to have to make a legitimate effort reach out to minorities.
17
@4
The NRA would say that if MLK had a gun with him, he would have been able to defend himself and he'd be alive today. He's dead today because he was a non-violent, peace-loving liberal.
The NRA would say that if MLK had a gun with him, he would have been able to defend himself and he'd be alive today. He's dead today because he was a non-violent, peace-loving liberal.
19
The 2nd Amendment was written in an acquiescence to the states that had slavery. The "well-regulated militias" were in reference to the militias who put down any sort of rebellion by the people who were enslaved, or attempted to escape. Funny how that gets scrubbed from history.
20
Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch…
21
Does this guy know anything at all about Dr. King and the policy of passive resistance? Guns were out of the question. The ignorance expressed here is breath-taking.
23
"Conservatives have been moving more and more into the historically left/liberal terrain of whining and victimhood for a couple of decades. "
But here's the thing of it: liberal constituents have historically had a damn good reason to whine, and they were legitimately victims.
Conservatives, on the other hand,are largely white, Christian and male (joined of course by their long-suffering, dim-witted wives, and women who hate other women). They are not in the least oppressed in the traditional sense, and the hardship they do suffer they largely bring upon themselves by voting for sociopaths. But they live such dull little lives that supposing themselves victims is quite attractive to them.
But here's the thing of it: liberal constituents have historically had a damn good reason to whine, and they were legitimately victims.
Conservatives, on the other hand,are largely white, Christian and male (joined of course by their long-suffering, dim-witted wives, and women who hate other women). They are not in the least oppressed in the traditional sense, and the hardship they do suffer they largely bring upon themselves by voting for sociopaths. But they live such dull little lives that supposing themselves victims is quite attractive to them.
24
So, unless Larry Ward's nickname is "Gun Nuts", Charles is making a pretty broad generalization. But I suppose it's easy to make a group of people look stupid when you pick a quote from one of the dumbest people that identify with that group and attribute it to a few million other folks.
I don't think "Gun Nuts" see themselves as an oppressed group of people. I think they view themselves as a group of people who refuse to open themselves up to oppression. And for anyone who doesn't think that firearms have aided the Civil Rights movement, I suggest you do some research on the Black Panthers or the Monroe, NC chapter or the NAACP.
There's also a great little story about an african american fella named Robert F. WIlliams, who along with 1 passenger and a few firearms, were able to hold off a violent mob of racist rednecks that were aided by local police, until state troopers were able to escort themselves to safety.
Fact is, the gun-control movement began to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and newly freed slaves. Conversely, it's earliest opponents were civil rights groups and people of color who needed protection when the government either wouldn't help them, or were actively oppressing them. You can divorce guns from MLK, but they were an important part of the civil rights movement.
I don't think "Gun Nuts" see themselves as an oppressed group of people. I think they view themselves as a group of people who refuse to open themselves up to oppression. And for anyone who doesn't think that firearms have aided the Civil Rights movement, I suggest you do some research on the Black Panthers or the Monroe, NC chapter or the NAACP.
There's also a great little story about an african american fella named Robert F. WIlliams, who along with 1 passenger and a few firearms, were able to hold off a violent mob of racist rednecks that were aided by local police, until state troopers were able to escort themselves to safety.
Fact is, the gun-control movement began to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and newly freed slaves. Conversely, it's earliest opponents were civil rights groups and people of color who needed protection when the government either wouldn't help them, or were actively oppressing them. You can divorce guns from MLK, but they were an important part of the civil rights movement.
26
So if the people who were captured in their homeland, shipped across the ocean in the holds of slaving ships, sold at auction and forced into a life of unpaid labor had been given guns by the people who did this to them, things might've gone differently. Jeez, it seems like the slave owners could've skipped a couple steps there and just not kidnapped those people and shipped them across the ocean in the first place.
27
MLK wanted/needed firearms the way a fish needs a bicycle.
Firearms might have helped native Africans from becoming slaves in the first place, but it is more likely that the coast Africans would have received the guns first and just used them to bring more slaves from the interior.
Once they were in the United States, having the "right" to bear arms wouldn't have actually gotten them any arms without any means to procure them. As @26 points out, it isn't like anyone was going to give them firearms!
On the other hand, if the Aztecs had firearms when they met the Spaniards, we might all still be sacrificing virgins to various gods. (Maybe that would have ultimately been a better world, I don't know.)
Also, if the inhabitants of Hispanolia had firearms when Christopher Columbus came along, they might have been able to avert the destruction of their people. Same thing for the various tribes of Native Americans.
Firearms might have helped native Africans from becoming slaves in the first place, but it is more likely that the coast Africans would have received the guns first and just used them to bring more slaves from the interior.
Once they were in the United States, having the "right" to bear arms wouldn't have actually gotten them any arms without any means to procure them. As @26 points out, it isn't like anyone was going to give them firearms!
On the other hand, if the Aztecs had firearms when they met the Spaniards, we might all still be sacrificing virgins to various gods. (Maybe that would have ultimately been a better world, I don't know.)
Also, if the inhabitants of Hispanolia had firearms when Christopher Columbus came along, they might have been able to avert the destruction of their people. Same thing for the various tribes of Native Americans.
Comments (28) RSS