Shen writes: "Larry Ward, chairman of Gun Appreciation Day, argued that if African slaves had been armed, they would have been able to prevent slavery from ever happening."
Larry Ward yells 'arm the teachers!' as demonstrators rally past his office during a protest against the NRA. Ward recently told CNN that 'armed African Americans could have prevented slavery.' (photo: Bonnie Jo Mount/WP)
Arming Black People Would Have Prevented Slavery?
12 January 13
he pro-gun lobby has kicked into overdrive to stifle anti-gun violence efforts in the wake of the Newtown school massacre. Gun advocates are cooking up a national Gun Appreciation Day for the weekend of President Obama’s second inauguration.
Larry Ward, chairman of Gun Appreciation Day, appeared on CNN on Friday to defend his event. When confronted with the fact that Gun Appreciation Day coincides with the celebration of civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr, who was assassinated with a gun, Ward insisted that his event “honors the legacy of Dr. King.” Ward didn’t stop there; he argued that if African slaves had been armed, they would have been able to prevent slavery from ever happening:
WARD: 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.
Maria Roach of United for Change USA pointed out that many people were outraged over the attempted co-opting of MLK Day, calling it a “power play.” Martin Luther King, Jr. a strict disciple of peaceful resistance, was shot by an assassin in 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968, the nation’s first comprehensive federal firearms regulation, was passed in response to King’s assassination, as well as the murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Malcolm X.
Ward also neglects to mention that in fact there were many armed uprisings by slaves, as early as 1526. Armed revolts almost always failed, and often led to retribution by the slave owners, who had the justice system on their side. Most famously, Nat Turner led a rebellion that resulted in 60 white deaths and 100 black deaths. The state later executed 56 blacks accused of being involved in the insurrection, and white mobs beat and killed at least 200 others in revenge.
Despite the lack of historical evidence, gun advocates have been trying hard to frame their cause in historical terms, comparing the plight of gun owners to the civil rights movement, Nazi Germany, and Cuba.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
|
23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
So, if those who want to own military assault weapons and large capacity clips want to become part of a volunteer "national guard" force in order to own assault weapons, I'm fine with that. They will need to accept the WELL-REGULATED part of that agreement, however.
Meanwhile, the rest of us need to speak out more forcefully about how gun fanatics continue to misinterpret and misread the 2nd Amendment. I'm convinced that our founders would be appalled at how their intentions have been twisted by today's gun fanatics.
I live in NH, where gun-owning is a sacred right, and everyone ignores the first half of the Amendment.
In general, the Constitution is exceedingly flexible, leaving many matters to the states and people.
But sometimes, as with the inequality of blacks and women, it is out of step with changing times and needs to be amended.
I think this applies to firearms (though, alas, there's no turning back). You are correct: there is no categorical right to bear arms, only a conditional one. And now that we have a standing army (which the Founders preferred to avoid), there's no need for everybody to be armed. Why is the world's (ahd history's) most powerful nation so weak and afraid that everybody has to pack heat?
N.
The founders would be appalled, Brenner. Constitutional Amendments (1st ten are the "Bill of Rights") are meant to modify the Articles to add clarity or address issues that were not considered. The 2nd Amendment is meant to clarify the wording in Article 1, Section 8 - and still needs further clarification. It's clear to me that the original intent was to arm civilians in support of the US government. But the NRA and rabid Right Wingers have construed that to mean that they have the right to be armed to oppose the government. NOT TRUE!
And the statement by Larry Ward "if African slaves had been armed, they would have been able to prevent slavery from ever happening" is a genuine uninformed idiotic outburst if I ever heard one. JUST ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF A DYING BREED!
O' so lynchings, cross-burnings and church dynamiting were well-regulated, eh?
The Amendment has nothing to do with a national guard, hunting, sporting use or anything other than personal liberty for Citizens (as opposed to subjects).
Do some research, would you please, before you yourself "misinterpret and misread" the 2nd Amendment...or any other amendment for that matter?
The first extended the Congressional power to call the militia to that of POTUS. It as well organized the militia into just as any standing army would be. Ranks, Office cadre, units, etc. We call that regulation. The second was conscription of all able bodied free white men ages 18-45. A militia officer would come by and recruit you. You had to provide your own musket, munitions, and equipment.
You see our govt is modeled after the Roman Republic. And if we had more actually read about the political structures of the Roman Republic they might understand why things are the way they are but most importantly the Roman Republic had a citizen army. FREE land owners fought.
The Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with the National Guard( a well regulated militia). The opposition, based on the fear of and the cost of a standing Army, was very strong at the time and the Founders envisioned calling up the local citizen militia in times of peril.
Today's gun lovers have twisted this Amendment to their advantage. So if any research is called for, it would be to explore WHY you have this love of guns, the answer to that has nothing to do with the legality and standing of the Second Amendment. Do your research in places other than NRA newsletters!
yeah, it would now need to say "Well-angered and whipped-up by fanatics"!
As to the Gun Control Act of 1968, introduced by Sen. Thomas Dodd (D-CT...name sound familiar?), the impetus was more from the Watts Riots of 1965 (again, to keep blacks from possessing firearms) than the assassinations of Kennedy (both), X and King.
In fact, language and intent of GCA-1968 was heavily influenced, if not outright lifted, from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.
Really, if you've never purchased/shot/ used/carried a firearm, do you have any credence to blather on about "gun fanatics", "crazies", et al?
Again, folks, get some knowledge before writing. You're only displaying your ignorance and then punctuating with certainty.
He said "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."
In other words, he was suggesting the absurd idea that African-America ns brought to the U.S. as slaves might be given the right to bear arms.
Of course if Africans had had the armament to resist European invaders there might not be slavery. Duh. That's a different issue.
But Ward's argument is part of the ludicrous idea that armed individuals in the U.S. could successfully resist a tyrannical government. Against the might of the U.S. military? Childish.
In fact when the British passed laws ending their merchants from the slave trade members of coastal African kingdoms when to Britain to convince them to undo this.
This is why I've always had a problem with the history books and the bible. These were books written and translated by man; men with an agenda. Men with skewed views and human weakness. No I reject most of American history because it favors caucasians, with no input from the Blacks that were surely here and contributing.
Pat Buchanan is a victim of this white washed "history". He truly believes that Blacks didn't have a hand in the building of this country. I've read some posts and had conversations with "white" guys that have told me there were only appr. 100,000 slaves. They were "given" three meals a day, clothing, and a place to live and this why they believe the country has to keep taking "care" of them. The only thing they had to do was pick some cotton. That is all they really did.
Doesn't that take your breath away?
A person can't find that level of ignorance, because nothing told him will shake him from his foundational beliefs as told to him by his parents, teachers, minsiters, and community.
The original slaves, in Africa, had no guns, and were outgunned by tribes along the coast, who were given guns and acted as slavecatchers for, the Europeans. They could have prevented their enslavement if they had had the arms to resist.
The slaves of the slave uprisings in the U.S. had very few or no guns. They were vastly outgunned by the white slave-owners. The insurgent slaves had mostly knives and clubs, with a few pikes and firearms stolen from the dead slaveowners.
So this article is totally misleading, and wrong. Arms are important to a democratic society and a free people of whatever race. Disarmament only leads to slavery, which is why the first proceedure by conquerers and slavers is to disarm the intended victims.
The Left today is the one group which MOST needs to be armed. We are already sitting ducks for the 1%, and this author wants to finish the job. NO! Keep your arms, and acquire more. You will need them.
The BEST elements of society are the ones which must be armed, so the WORST elements do not get a monopoly on the means of violence. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Read Gen. Tom Barry's "Guerilla Warfare In Ireland" to understand the importance of an armed people if you do not believe me.
Common sense gun regulations do not equal "they are coming for your guns."
The teabaggers/FUX increasing anti-Obama, anti-government paranoia stokes the fires of resentment--mea nwhile Americans are gunned down at an ever increasing rate--the recent mass shootings of children, etc., does not even seem to register one meter on the gun protagonists' scale, and the NRA fascist gun god reigns supreme.
With current weapons technology, the military can exterminate with ease, via drones, or simply enact the NDAA--your at-home weapons cache will not help you.
They'd bury it with you.
Childish.
Gang banger deaths are usually at the hand of another gang banger. Should we then arm them more? Apparently one having a gun did not stop the other from going and killing him.
We are about to have more guns than we have people yet this has done what? Every one of these mass shootings causes a rise in gun and ammo purchase. Yet has this prevented the govt from passing say the patriot act? Or what about the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA? Wiretaps? List goes on.
Here are some logistical questions regarding the “well armed” citizens' uprising against the tyranny of the government:
How will it happen? Who will make the call? Where will everybody meet? Where will they attack first? Who will give the signal to fire? What will be the incident that the “well armed” citizens agree upon that this was the straw that broke the camel’s back? Will it be a mass movement or just maybe five to ten people from each town? How about the ones that stay at home? The ones that wish to use the means of a democratic society to change the situation. The ones who really believe in democracy?
An uprising of a few armed people against the tyranny and injustice of the government has in most cases led to another tyranny.
Examples: French Revolution, Oliver Cromwell.
The way I see it: It’s not that they are guns around and some crazy people find access to it. No, listening to people that are armed to their teeth because they are afraid of some looming doomsday I found that these are the crazy people. Disarmament is the call of the day.
Yeah and you can tell the "Radical whites" by their NRA baseball caps and foreheads villainous low, connoting lack of a brain cavity.
You must live in a very small world. But then most "patriots" do.
When African-America ns did arm themselves, the lunatic J. Edgar Hoover launched FBI and police terrorism against the black citizens...reme mber the Black Panther Party.
Example: Black political activist Fred Hampton was murdered by the Chicago Police - though police were found to have murdered him - no charges were carried through against the police.
Eldrige Cleaver and other leaders of the Black Panther Party were driven into exile or murdered by the white establishment.. .for daring to arm themselves against American racists.
Guns are never the answer. Open access to guns mixed with violent culture, fear, and racism brings on murder.
By the way, the "insanity" claim - that Adam Lanza, the Colorado theater killer, the nut who shot the American Congresswoman were just mentally disturbed is a fraudulent excuse to deflect from the open access to guns problem.
In an intelligent society, not the dysfunctional American one, all murder is an insane act.
Jim Crow laws included a number of statutes designed to keep freed blacks disarmed or to hinder their access to weapons.
And you sure couldn't expect the citizens who did own firearms to make any effort to protect their fellow citizens, second amendment or no.
http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130111.htm
"December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children."
The above screed is pure BS propaganda!
Aviva Shen has deliberately evaded the issue and historical facts of Wounded Knee to advance a communist agenda...
In the real world, small bands of resistors cannot prevail against a modern army.
This statement is absurd as it is unknown what the out would have been had the Sioux not been ambushed...
Second part ignores the history of Afghanstan - both times when the Soviets invaded and our own inabilities to secure the region. The Afghan natives have, in fact, esentially defeated two (2) world superpowers! HaHaHa...
There were 500 soldiers at Wounded Knee and 350 Lakotas, only 120 of whom were men. After only 38 rifles had been confiscated, a fight broke out and the sides traded fire.
There was a battle, in which 25 soldiers were killed, followed by the massacre, in which only 51 Lakotas were left alive or unwounded.
Those 38 confiscated rifles could never have turned the tide in favor of the Lakotas, so badly outnumbered.
The point is not to dispute the facts of Wounded Knee, but to underline the absurdity of bands of individuals with arms standing up to the U.S. military.
Even in the 18th Century, with only flintlocks, the Continental Army put down two insurrections, Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. The outcomes were decided by numbers, training, and discipline.
The Taliban, too, is hardly a "small band of resistors," but an organized force. And the U.S. military is not fighting on its own ground and is up against an entire country full of "enemies." It can't possibly occupy the whole country.
There is nothing analogous in the United States. There isn't going to be any trained militia that could combat the U.S. army, most of the country would be against such an insurrection, and the military would not be invading another country, but defending its own.
The idea that the Second Amendment exists as a deterrent to government tyranny is completely delusional.
After that the soviets were losing millions of dollars of military hardware they could not afford to lose.
Exactly what part of that quote is BS?
The whole incident at Wounded Knee (1) was STARTED by a white soldier trying to wrestle a rifle away from a young warrior, the piece went off by accident and that was all the excuse that the remnants of Custer's 7th cavalry routed at the Greasy Grass, needed to unleash an uncontrolled revenge frenzy (so much for a "well regulated militia---") that killed 29 of the soldiers in circular formation also, so bent on mayhem were they that day.
Unlike MLK, the NRA brass are bunch of cowards and bullies,
Try fighting Big Brother with y'r popguns; I'll come and watch.
Cubans did arm themselves and drive out the American dictator and Mafia cohort, Fulgencio Batista...
probably not the scenario the NRA nuts want to remember.
America the great hypocrite: claiming freedom and supporting every dictatorship that crushes freedom.
Given that; our present supposed 'democratic' governments are ill-founded your "hypocrisy" statement is correct, but the solution is economic organization to rebuild Eco-Dem, not armed rebellion. The most successful human transformations have always been economic. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
Such a scenario is impossible in the United States.
You must be joking: Batista had the US behind him, CIA,, Mafia and all. His Cuba was the playground of the rich, crooked and ruthless, kinda like a Latino Vegas but humid.
And anything is possible in the US these day but you now have a police force at all levels who are practically indistinguishab le from the military in terms of lethal firepower when they turn out in force.
Larry Ward and LaPierre know this as well as anybody, yet will whip people up into believing that their pathetic collections of weapons, no matter how high-powered are just like bee-bee's against the assembled Dart Vader squads.
They're not unlike the Beltway insider chicken-hawks and pundits like Krystal and Cheney who constantly advocate for unleashing the dogs of war but wouldn't be seen anywhere near a combat zone -except for the dust of their wheels speeding in the opposite direction.
They are the cowards and propagandists, seemingly with a ready following and lobby.
It's difficult to apply either to American slaves (remember that the first Africans to be brought to the U.S. WERE slaves), as effective organization and resistance by them would have been nearly impossible, all questions of access to weapons aside.
And it's impossible to say "what would have happened". We know only what did happen. Slavery (at least in name) came to an end only through the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil.
In fact the idea that race is the cause of slavery started because of a revolt involving white & black . The divided and conquered the revolt by convincing the whites that the blacks deserved slavery because of their race.
The fact is race is a social construct with no basis in biology.
What finally came to me was mitigating the horrors of slavery in order for the descendents of those vicious, cruel, pedophiles, rapists, and murderous slave owners wouldn't judged them for the amoral pack they really are. Picture it, the imaginations of jack and jill and the looks they would level at their "civilized" race when they understand the horrors, humiliation and death Blacks suffered. The questions that would arise, because of the cold lack of conscience or empathy for the suffering of other people, not property, but people.
Another thought occurred and that was, these people are so calculating and were so offended at the thought of reparations being paid to Blacks for real slavery, they just might be trying to position themselves to be paid reparations for a nonexistent state. Amoral, devious, and disgusting.
I do not think black slavery should be ignored. 42 of my relatives put on blue to help end it. I do not know this other persons motives but for me it is simply a part of our history we bury as if it is just matter of fact. Some backwater areas of the South were populated by runaway indentured whites.
The bible has slave laws both for indentured servants, this was the Israelite laws, and then chattel or non Jewish slave laws.
Twain talks about this. In how whites in the South were taught black slavery was ok. Not to mention that they were teaching them to be civilized by Christianizing them etc.
BUT people back then as in 1861 did see color of ones skin as a different race. In modern biology this is not the case as skin color is not enough to denote another species. There is only one race, human.
Possibly Max Roach never heard of Deacons for Defense and Justice. They were African-America ns who had guns to defend themselves against the KKK.
The rebellion on board the Amistad WAS successful. After the Amistad was seized by the prisoners and was on its way back to Africa, it was accosted several times by US vessels. On at least one occasion armed Africans prevented her from being boarded. Is the author suggesting that the revolt on the Amistad would have gone even better if the Africans had no guns?
I'm trying to understand this statement.... If the slaves "did not have no guns," that means that they were armed with guns, right?
As far as the ship "Amistad" is concerned.... At the start of the uprising, the slaves didn't have any guns. At the end, they were easily overwhelmed by the US Navy.
And exactly what is it what you are saying? They were better off being put in slavery where slave owners provided 'comfortable' housing, three 'satisfying' meals a day and some posh clothing? Just a little cotton picking on the side, if you don't mind.
And do you really think the Africans were brought here with their entire family?
We all have a right to 'bare' (naked) arms because we need them unimpeded to contribute to a fair society, hold, love & support each other fully. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/9-right-to-bare-arms
Really? How could slaves have armed themselves and rebelled successfully against slavery with the gunnuts of that time protecting it?
if the slaves would have had weapons, the white christians would have had major problems. the same is true for the middle class in the usa. they would never have had any wealth if american marines had not killed and robbed outside the usa, and if the settlers would not have had weapons the land could have not been stolen from the indians.
i don't understand why americans on't understand this fact. the whole system is based on violence.
These utterly futile and speculative fantasies keep the public mind in a state of restless energy, such that important events go by without public notice, and the discourse can be kept to a minimum use of mind.
Now, let's quote Chuck Yeager (inexactly, from memory), "There is no difference in the quality of the pilots of various countries,; the difference is in their planes. Whoever has the best equipment will win."
Having guns is not enough, we can't bring down the government with guns; it has tanks, flame throwers, jets, drones, etc. This is a fantasy. Whoever has the best guns in the street or school will win, even if killed; the score will be 1 vs many.
But yes Custer for example died by Indians with better guns not just better numbers.
We can go to the NoHO in SoCal bank robbery. The cops may have not had AKs etc BUT they had the numbers. They claimed they were outgunned but it was the fact that the robbers had body armor on. Otherwise they both would had died to a hail of cop bullets.
I hope that Occupy people, especially, remember and honor Dr. King for his work for economic justice, peace, and civil rights. Try to understand why Martin Luther King was involved with all of these concerns, not just one or two.
What would MLK say about the gun violence in today's America? It's difficult to imagine him saying, "Buy an assault rifle." That wasn't the message that Dr. King delivered to America.
From WikiPedia: Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[108] Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[109] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.
That was crazy then and it's still crazy.
Post Civil War South was bloody. Grant as POTUS called in the US Military to reoccupy the South to try to stop the violence.
Or "if someone wants to kill, they'll find a weapon" (see the recent school knife attack in China for the answer to that - about 30 children injured, NONE FATALLY.)
I certainly wouldn't like to be near anyone that stupid when they're holding a gun, so this new argument at least gives them a vague semblance of intelligence.
But otherwise, this is still as pathetic as all the rest of the arguments, when statistics show the US is a far more dangerous place to live in terms of gun accidents, as well as deliberate shootings, than any other country for which statistics exist - including Mexico and Brazil. These inadequate people want to play at being cowboys - or nowadays at being marines, or James Bond or whatever - so children have to die.
Taking his idiotic example for gospel, should we therefore arm all immigrants immediately upon their arrival to help them prevent the extreme prejudice, hatred, and mistreatment so many experience when they encounter white conservative assholes here?
Which proves: winning a battle requires firepower. Winning over the hart and mind of your opponent requires exposing your humanity.
The events before the fall of The Wall:
People were gathering mostly in churches where they found that they are not alone with their discontent about the government. More and more came. They lit candles and took to the streets. Peacefully, just walking down the streets with their candles.
There was a very good TV-Movie in Germany a few years after the fall depicting the course of the Velvet Revolution. One of the last scenes in the movie is the view from a STASI (State Security) office onto the street filled by thousands and thousands of people with their candles, putting them on the stairs of the STASI building.
The STASI officer in the office looking down at the crowd said in desperation:
“We were prepared for them coming with guns but what can we do against candles.”
It is worth noting that "3D printers" can already manufacture guns for anyone in the home who cares to buy one. Currently such printers are expensive, but ten years from now--- who knows.
Remember, they are driven by paranoia, not rational thought.
These "They're attacking me, they're trying to get me" raves are completely in character.
Next we'll be hearing that MLK shold have been armed in his hotel room on the day the rightwing loon shot him.
The conclusion is that they really don't believe in Jesus. They worship a false God -- who said don't put any false gods before me? Is that old testament?
Well, I don't consider gun worshipers Christians. When I hear so-called Christians bragging about all the guns they have I question them about their conflicting faiths and have not once gotten anything that can be construed as an intelligible answer. Because folks, there ain't one.
But feel free to try.
Religion tied with ignorance is the worst enemy of humanity.
The intensity of rhetoric from the radical right on this reminds me of that of the southern slave holding states prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.
Even while persuasion and emotion - not intellect - is running their own lives.
RSS feed for comments to this post