RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

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)
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?

By Aviva Shen, Think Progress

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.

 

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

 
+118 # WFBrenner 2013-01-12 09:36
The NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed. It is clear to me that the founders' intent in the 2nd Amendment was to provide for the means to have an armed, WELL-REGULATED, citizen militia which the federal government could call up when necessary, in order to avoid having to keep a large, expensive, standing army in place at all times.
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.
 
 
+38 # jazzman633 2013-01-12 13:59
I completely agree.
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?
 
 
+16 # devonola 2013-01-13 09:35
Spot on. And there is lies the $64K question. Why is this country so fearful...of everything from Martians, Venutians, A-rabs, the Blacks, the "thugs", gangstas, ghosts, monsters, foreign "evil-doers", domestic "evil-doers", and last but not least, the wrath of a "jealous god". Hmm, maybe that last one holds some answers. Maybe it's that we've effected so much horror in the world, we know it's only a matter of time before we get our comeuppance, or maybe it's that a good chunk of the population is so drenched in misinformation due to a corporatized media. I beleive all the above to be true and possibly I few I left out. In any event, hate-filled, fear-filled misinformed people do NOT deserve to be armed.
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2013-01-14 08:21
My dear DEVONOLA, the reason that we are a fearful country is because that is the way of men. There is always someone stirring up fear/anger against another tribe/country in order to gain POWER. Until we women start taking some responsibility for the running of this world, so it shall continue.
 
 
+4 # NanFan 2013-01-13 10:39
Sad, sad America.

N.
 
 
+33 # doneasley 2013-01-12 14:02
Quoting WFBrenner:
The NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed... I'm convinced that our founders would be appalled at how their intentions have been twisted by today's gun fanatics.


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!
 
 
-10 # Dion Giles 2013-01-12 17:47
Wasn't the Ku Klux Klan a "well-regulated citizen militia"? Wasn't the Confederate army a "well-regulated militia"?
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2013-01-14 12:15
Quoting Dion Giles:
Wasn't the Ku Klux Klan a "well-regulated citizen militia"? Wasn't the Confederate army a "well-regulated militia"?

O' so lynchings, cross-burnings and church dynamiting were well-regulated, eh?
 
 
+2 # JJS 2013-01-15 04:01
Don't forget the South's attempt at secession. How's that workin' out for ya, Dion?
 
 
-34 # JTHinSD 2013-01-12 18:42
Context, my friend, context. The term "well-regulated ", when put into the context of the 2nd Amendment and language usage at the time of it's drafting, meant, in today's vernacular, "well-TRAINED."

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?
 
 
+12 # Sophie 2013-01-12 23:01
Excuse me , but you are the person who NEEDS to do some research re the 2nd. amendment.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2013-01-14 08:21
Please explain why?
 
 
+9 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 01:52
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The following year in the spring of 1792 Congress of Founding Fathers to include Framers passed two militia acts. It was signed into law by a founding father POTUS.

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.
 
 
+5 # coach777b 2013-01-13 06:31
Quoting JTHinSD:
Context, my friend, context. The term "well-regulated", when put into the context of the 2nd Amendment and language usage at the time of it's drafting, meant, in today's vernacular, "well-TRAINED."

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 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!
 
 
+5 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-13 11:32
I'm not sure that "love" is the appropriate word. More to the point, it is a sick fixation similar to a stalker on a sixth grade girl.
 
 
+5 # sandyclaws 2013-01-13 08:56
The today's vernacular that you refer to is the extreme right's conotation. I prefer the dictionary's definition which is the real definition meaning (as it always has been), Control or supervise by means of rules and regulation. Before you instruct other people, you yourself should be educated. Next time instruct yourself before you write into one of these blogs. Tell us, which weapons manufacturing company do you work for?
 
 
+7 # Quickmatch 2013-01-13 13:08
Well, I've done a bit of research in the last couple days: "The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clause"David E. Young. This document seems to support your stand that the second is aboutliberty, but more about their well founded 18th century fear of a standing army and their belief that a state-controlle d militia is the natural and preferred defense of the country and the states. Obviously, our standing army of more than 1.4 million since 1946 and our continuous involvment of wars must temper those fears: we are no longer in the 18th century. Times have changed. That much of our population is now held in terror of a few gun manufactures and owners who desire firearms of mass murder (remember, the Second was a product of the flintlock age--how could they anticipate 30 rounds in 10 seconds or people who would use them to execute school children). Personal handguns for home protection--OK by me. semi-auto weapons pouring death 30, 50, 100 times for the amusement of hobbiests and inevitable abuse of a few is intolerable. It should be the ideal of citizens of this republic to put the safety of the citizenry before the hobbies of a few frightened individuals.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2013-01-14 12:16
Quoting JTHinSD:
Context, my friend, context. The term "well-regulated", when put into the context of the 2nd Amendment and language usage at the time of it's drafting, meant, in today's vernacular, "well-TRAINED."

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?

yeah, it would now need to say "Well-angered and whipped-up by fanatics"!
 
 
-30 # JTHinSD 2013-01-12 18:54
Ironically, most gun control laws on the books today were originally meant to limit, if not eliminate, gun possession by emancipated slaves. That's why there are still questions on race on the myriad forms one must complete to purchase a firearm, across the US.

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.
 
 
+5 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 01:44
German gun control laws forbiding Jew and Non German ownership were for those living IN Germany. It did not pertain to those OUTSIDE of Germany from which MOST were rounded up put into Polish Ghettos for Jews and Work Camps for others. The latter which eventually becoming death camps. Those other people did fight back. We know them as Partisans. The Germans had to leave a hell of a lot of troops behind the lines to act as security which could had better served them on the front. I was in the military. I am a gun owner. I used to be a member of the NRA.
 
 
0 # JJS 2013-01-15 04:03
Then you reap what you sow.
 
 
+13 # Byronator 2013-01-12 19:27
Larry Ward has no ammunition in his intellectual gun belt. If slavery had been outlawed as an amendment to the Constitution from the very start, guess what -- there would have been no slaves. And no need for armed uprisings. The "freedom" to own another human being was an evil and fraudulent right endorsed by slave states. Kind of like the NEA and the Second Amendment.
 
 
+44 # luvdoc 2013-01-12 09:45
And the beat goes on. What inanity! What glorification and celebration that each citizen can hold the god like power of instant death. Yet God's commandments clearly state "Thou shall not kill.' It is schizoid to celebrate guns and keep the commandment. luvdoc
 
 
-59 # JohnBoanerges 2013-01-12 11:21
Work to disarm cops and soldiers, then.
 
 
+26 # engelbach 2013-01-12 12:15
People who claim to be Christian and don't do that are hypocrites.
 
 
+2 # PGreen 2013-01-12 18:22
There are both moral and practical arguments to do both, as Gandhi could have told you.
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-13 11:37
That would be a good idea, especially the cops. As anyone with any interest in the world around them knows, cops in the UK are unarmed and they have a LOT less problem with violence there, especially the intercop/civili an violence. The same thing applies to Japan and many other countries where police go unarmed.
 
 
+112 # Barbara K 2013-01-12 09:45
Larry Ward is the King of Idiots. Did he not attend school and study history at all? The slaves were not slaves until they were kidnapped from Africa and a couple other countries and brought to here in shackles and stacked on slave ships. There was never any intention to give them freedom, and certainly not any guns. They were to be slaves for the wealthy, who think there still should be slaves. Go back to 4th grade, Larry Ward. You are a disgrace. Having gun appreciation day on Martin Luther King shows just how stupid and ignorant and dishonorable you and your ilk are.
 
 
-59 # JohnBoanerges 2013-01-12 11:10
If the future slaves had the same arms as the arab (muslim) kidnappers had, they would never ended up as commodities in the first place.
 
 
+43 # engelbach 2013-01-12 12:14
That's not what Ward said.

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.
 
 
+13 # Smiley 2013-01-12 12:38
Let's hope, when it comes to that, that not all the military will go along with the tyranny.
 
 
+1 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 16:45
Delusional.
 
 
+10 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 16:44
Do you know where there is a house of cowards located? I do. Congress. Not one of those soft candy asses has ever had a fight. They have soft hands and are use to "earning" money off of people that work for a living. They all have soft hands and use words as punches. Yet, they don't hesitate to send our children into combat and possible death. They don't see people as valuable, just as pawns to be maneuvered according to their wishes.
 
 
+4 # Selwick 2013-01-13 06:31
There was a time when that already happened. It's called Feudalism.
 
 
+5 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 01:58
Ummm you do realize that Africans themselves on the coast enslaved Africans from the interior and then sold them to the Muslims and later Europeans?

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.
 
 
+1 # Selwick 2013-01-13 06:29
Read Barbara's post again, would you. You are outing yourself as one of those many persons who obviously made it through school without having gained any knowledge and skills. Or you are from the South, or both.
 
 
+6 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-13 11:40
The arabs weren't operating in West Africa at the time as you must surely know. The people who sold the slaves to the slave traders were tribes that were in conflict with the tribes that "supplied" the slaves. The slave sellers were helped along by the slave traders selling and giving them guns.
 
 
+1 # JJS 2013-01-15 04:06
More gun $ale$. I get it!
 
 
+13 # Smiley 2013-01-12 12:36
If you can't refrain from name calling, please don't comment. Division and invective never help to solve any problems.
 
 
+14 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 16:27
Most of those idiots were home -schooled, which isn't an excuse for those that attended organized school.

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.
 
 
-70 # bong_jamesbong2001 2013-01-12 09:54
I disagree with this article completely.

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.
 
 
-20 # bachuill 2013-01-12 11:15
exactly- after 4 hundred years the english finally subdued the irish- the first thing they did was disarm them and forbid them from owning a horse suitable for war- so do all oppressors
 
 
-31 # JohnBoanerges 2013-01-12 11:20
This writer seems to acknowledge that the 1% (which is a far far higher number when one adds up all the cops, judges, prosecutors, clerks and all others who wield daily power over their bosses/their victims) are the source of our most immediate danger (Well, then there is the Pakistani/India n Kashmir border dispute which can go nuclear at the drop of a hat). BTW, these readers will NOT understand even if they look at history (which shows that governments killed over 200 million of their OWN subjects (who had been previously disarmed).
 
 
+11 # Sophie 2013-01-12 23:20
NO ONE has been "disarmed."
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.
 
 
+31 # engelbach 2013-01-12 12:17
You think you're going to hole up and resist the U.S. military with your deer rifle?

They'd bury it with you.

Childish.
 
 
-1 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 17:11
lol
 
 
0 # JJS 2013-01-15 04:09
I would like to have the means to protect myself from less well armed hoodlums, however. This goal can be accomplished with common sense gun laws.
 
 
+2 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 16:55
The left have guns. This is why the right are so woefully ignorant. There are a very significant of left that are members of the NRA. The difference is that they are sensible and not wedded to their arms. They are not willing to give them up, but they are always open to what is the better good for our country. They don't mind being sensibly regulated. They don't need high capacity mags for target practice and the ydon't run around in fear of retaliation. Or, jump at every sound.
 
 
+4 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 02:05
So Somalia has a boat load of freedom then? Mogadishu is one of the if not THE most armed cities in the world. They brag about booting us out yet they kept on killing one another.

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.
 
 
0 # Selwick 2013-01-13 06:57
Excellent!
 
 
+3 # Selwick 2013-01-13 06:54
So then, why are all the other democratic societies with free people are doing so much better than this one? It is not because everybody has more guns than the Americans do but less! (of course a lot of people do not know that other democratic societies are doing so much better than the U.S. because they are kept in the dark like people in North Korea)

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.
 
 
+58 # tswhiskers 2013-01-12 09:55
Arming the slaves? In this era of laughable political statements, this really takes the cake for DUMB, stupid, ahistorical comments. A vision of armed slaves was the great nightmare scenario of all slaveholders and for that matter, of all Southern whites. Surely this is proof positive of the NRA's stupidity and political tonedeafness. The only bright side I see here is a hope that as the NRA continues to push guns not as a cause of death and destruction, but as the cureall for crime and self-protection , more NRA members and more thoughtful Americans will see the NRA for the shills for gun companies that they really are. Even more important, perhaps more people will see how little value the NRA places on life, human or animal and how little regard they have for the havoc and tragedy that guns cause in peoples' lives.
 
 
-31 # egbegb 2013-01-12 10:02
Nigeria has a gun ownership rate of 1.5 guns per 100 population. Rebels regularly rape, kidnap and murder citizens in ongoing tribal and religious warfare. What those rebels be more reluctant to walk into a house if they knew each person in the house was armed? I think so.
 
 
+58 # tedrey 2013-01-12 10:06
There are people whose mental and emotional stability suggests that they can be trusted with firearms. It is becoming more and more evident that the leaders of the NRA are not among them.
 
 
-89 # patriot4911 2013-01-12 10:09
It's getting so you can pick out the radical blacks when they have afros. They were the radical ones in the 70's and now here they come again with their afros.
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2013-01-12 18:38
Quoting patriot4911:
It's getting so you can pick out the radical blacks when they have afros. They were the radical ones in the 70's and now here they come again with their afros.

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.
 
 
+73 # jmac9 2013-01-12 10:09
Of course the NRA guys are a bunch of nuts and such statements are insane.

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.
 
 
+35 # Ninure 2013-01-12 10:11
And being armed did not prevent Black people from being lynched, beaten, murdered by White /Citizen Councils/ White law enforcement/KKK .
 
 
-41 # JohnBoanerges 2013-01-12 11:24
But, Ninure, they were NOT armed, so, your strawman argument is fart-gas.
 
 
+12 # engelbach 2013-01-12 12:18
You need to clean up your language.
 
 
+24 # squinty 2013-01-12 11:56
ActQuoting Ninure:
And being armed did not prevent Black people from being lynched, beaten, murdered by White /Citizen Councils/ White law enforcement/KKK.

Jim Crow laws included a number of statutes designed to keep freed blacks disarmed or to hinder their access to weapons.
 
 
0 # gzuckier 2013-01-12 18:29
Quoting squinty:
ActQuoting Ninure:
And being armed did not prevent Black people from being lynched, beaten, murdered by White /Citizen Councils/ White law enforcement/KKK.

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.
 
 
-39 # Dumbledorf 2013-01-12 10:11
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has posted an important article, which I wuld like to share here:

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...
 
 
+23 # engelbach 2013-01-12 12:22
Had the Sioux kept their arms and resisted, they still would have been massacred.

In the real world, small bands of resistors cannot prevail against a modern army.
 
 
-1 # Dumbledorf 2013-01-12 13:13
Quoting engelbach:
Had the Sioux kept their arms and resisted, they still would have been massacred.

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...
 
 
+6 # engelbach 2013-01-12 14:58
No, I'm right. The U.S. Army had far more firepower than the Native Americans.

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.
 
 
+1 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 02:17
Which is why they wanted to move to a new constitution. The Articles of Confederation were not working. One year after the Bill of Rights were ratified FF Congress passed and signed by Washington Militia Acts extending the powers of Congress to call the Militia to POTUS, WELL REGULATING the militia by forming it as any standing army would be, units formations, enlisted and officer ranks, etc as well as conscription of 18-45 able bodied free white men who had to bring their own musket, munitions, etc. They wanted a citizens army that knew how to drill and fight to be called upon to protect the US Govt from rebellions like Shay and Whiskey.
 
 
+10 # engelbach 2013-01-12 15:10
First of all, the Mujahideens who fought the Soviets were not a "small band of resistors." They were a disciplined army that had been trained in China and Pakistan and were funded with billions of dollars and modern weaponry by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

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.
 
 
+1 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 02:19
Exactly. Afghan forces were getting their asses kicked till we started to give and train them to use weapons to take out Soviet armor and aircraft. Before them a soviet helicopter would simply gun down any afghan force unless it hid.

After that the soviets were losing millions of dollars of military hardware they could not afford to lose.
 
 
+3 # Smiley 2013-01-12 12:49
Dumbledorf,
Exactly what part of that quote is BS?
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2013-01-12 16:33
Quoting Dumbledorf:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has posted an important article, which I wuld like to share here:

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...

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.
 
 
+45 # jmac9 2013-01-12 10:15
Oh, and by the way: Cuba.

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.
 
 
+8 # JohnBoanerges 2013-01-12 11:26
All Governments Lie, an interesting book by I. F. Stone. I say that All Governments are Hypocrites. Anyone disagree???
 
 
+3 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-12 12:57
JohnBoanerges, Missing from the US & other world government constitutions of our era is 'Economic' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home') Democracy. Humanity's 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') ancestors structured life-long universal progressive ownership in multihome habitation & specialized Production Societies / Guilds. Eco-Dem is a key foundation for 'political' (Greek 'workings of the many') 'Democracy' (Greek 'power of the people'), which is meant as a subset.

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
 
 
+14 # hillwright 2013-01-12 11:38
Thanks jmac9 for mentioning Cuba. Fidel said he was not interested in corrupt American style elections. Better to arm the peasants, which he did. They saved the country in the face of the Bay of Pigs and marksmanship has been mandatory. Cuban workers are required regular security training. The real 2nd Amendment in action.
 
 
+5 # engelbach 2013-01-12 12:24
Castro's insurgency was popular throughout Cuba, and he was joined by defectors from the army as well. Batista did not have a strong military or the ability to secure remote areas of the country.

Such a scenario is impossible in the United States.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2013-01-13 15:04
Quoting engelbach:
Castro's insurgency was popular throughout Cuba, and he was joined by defectors from the army as well. Batista did not have a strong military or the ability to secure remote areas of the country.

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.
 
 
+35 # openlyblack 2013-01-12 10:19
Yet, despite being part of an insanely inane group of blustering bloviators, people like Larry Ward can legally purchase firearms ... and breed.
 
 
+29 # DaveM 2013-01-12 10:25
The ideal of any "resistance" is not to "win", per se, but to keep fighting until stronger forces arrive (as with the Warsaw Uprising), or to make continuing to fight more trouble than it is worth for the oppressor (as with the American Revolution).

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.
 
 
+5 # indio007 2013-01-12 10:27
A common fallacy is that slavery is based on race. It has nothing to do with race. There were over 100,000 "white" slaves at the end of the Civil war.

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.
 
 
+2 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 16:13
Quoting indio007:
A common fallacy is that slavery is based on race. It has nothing to do with race. There were over 100,000 "white" slaves at the end of the Civil war.
For years I wondered, “Why are these people pushing this bull about "white" slaves, when there just weren't any in America?” The whites that you are referring to were contract servants, "serfs". There was an end date to their servitude. Death was the end date of service for Blacks. Slaves.

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.
 
 
+2 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 02:47
uh, one is called indentured servitude while the other is called chattel slavery. They are both slavery. The former is WHITE washed in this country. These were not people who simply signed contracts. They had a higher death rate than chattel slaves and since chattel slaves were routinely beaten etc what do you think that means? It means someone worked that fool to death to get his money back. That is seven years of labor not sitting around cracking walnuts exchanging stories and have pillow fights at night. Contracts were sold back and forth. You could add time to contracts for disciplinary reasons. The courts upheld them. 2/3s of the indentured servants were against their will. How did you think Cromwell moved so many English on Irish land to what became known as Northern Ireland? Ethnic cleanse much. Orphans had it worse. These children got beaten and thrown into a ditch. No one gave a shit about them. See they had laws against indentured running away as well. They got branded and it was against the law to harbor them. They could not marry etc. See a lot of poor people do things when they are desperate like being hungry and well the rich man does not like this so they get put into servitude to go to the colonies to work the fields etc.
 
 
+2 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 02:53
Blacks were not always chattel slaves but indentured as well although it was rare and non existent by 1861. Whites did not like the idea of free Blacks owning slaves especially white ones though. Indentured of whites pretty much ended when we booted the mother ship shortly after our independence as northern states passed laws against slavery which over decades would rid it in steps. Black slavery though remained from Maryland down to Georgia and was chattel.

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.
 
 
-3 # rhondayes 2013-01-12 16:15
You can use your "college" words all you want and what you say may be true, but in the real world where the rest of us live, white folk depend desperately on their "race" for all of the benefits and extras they received because of a social sturcture put into place by their ancestors.
 
 
+1 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 03:03
That was the sons of Ham argument. Since Noah cursed Ham and that his descendents would be the servants of his other sons. One of Hams son was Kush. Know where Kush was and the color of their skin?

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.
 
 
+5 # shraeve 2013-01-12 10:31
Is the author suggesting that Nat Turner's revolt would have been successful if the revolutionaries did not have no guns? I don't think George Washington would have agreed.

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?
 
 
+3 # Smokey 2013-01-12 12:05
[quote name="shraeve"] "Is the author suggesting that Nat Turner's revolt would have been successful if the revolutionaries did not have 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.
 
 
+15 # cordleycoit 2013-01-12 10:41
Armed rebellion is romantic and real> Native Ameicans tried it without much Success. Tecumseh was the exception. The Southerners lived in fear of slave rebellions or mutinies. Captain Brown's first kill at Harper's Ferry was a Black man. When you start shooting is when reason seems to slip away from the Cause. But it's not the guns it is the intention. Remember Native Americans were regarded as savages and fifty million were exterminated. Blacks suffered the same fate,except they were worked to death. It's the down side of market capitalism. Remember self defense is a right. Killing is the worst outcome.
 
 
+19 # trini-boy 2013-01-12 10:43
I am an African-america n Male who is "gun-rights" supporter; but, for quite different; diametrically differnent reasons than the 'traditional gun rights lobby/supporter s!" But, Ward's premise/theory that "armed" 17th; 18th century people who were subjected to slavery, would have been able to resist slavery, if, in-fact they were armed is an absolutely "LUDICRIOUS" assertion, at-best!!
 
 
+2 # home 2013-01-12 10:48
Still...They would have been taken from Africa, and placed into the USA. With Nothing. Would have needed to work (someplace) for food & housing for them & family.
 
 
0 # Selwick 2013-01-13 07:25
Quoting home:
Still...They would have been taken from Africa, and placed into the USA. With Nothing. Would have needed to work (someplace) for food & housing for them & family.


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?
 
 
+20 # Kathymoi 2013-01-12 10:54
Interesting that the FBI considers OWS a terrorist group, and OWS is a peaceful group absolutely opposed to gun violence or any kind of violent protest. And the gun lobby is largely a status quo support group that wants its guns to be able to overthrow the government with automatic weapons. Interesting.
 
 
+13 # usedtobesupermom 2013-01-12 10:56
this guy obviously knows nothing about martin luther king, or american history for that matter.
 
 
+19 # Vauban 2013-01-12 10:59
Larry Ward is of course a delusional, insensitive and paranoid idiot who obviously lives in the vacuum of his own mind. By his reasoning arming the Neanderthals would have prevented Homo Sapiens from taking over, arming the Jews would have prevented the Romans and Egyptians from enslaving them and arming oneself is necessary when the Zombies attack.
 
 
+9 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-12 11:00
BASIC RULES OF THE GUN GAME. The Finance-Media-M ilitary-Industr ial complex is always arming both sides, their side & the other side. War & death is the nature of their business, which runs at 40% of GNP for Canada, USA, NATO & Israel. Wherever there is conflict, injury & death, they are making a killing.

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
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2013-01-12 12:30
The M-I-complex is very strategic in always providing the other-side, individual or groups with inferior weapons as well as always contributing to environmental & social destruction. Larry Ward & the NRA are the results of & script writers for such as John Wayne, Ronald Reagan & Clint Eastwood's films. The problem is that their agenda is to create havoc, mayhem & tragedy in everyday life all of the time everywhere. Larry Ward, Nancy Lanza & the NRA are examples of delinquents who desperately need to take on real world responsibility for contributing to a better world.
 
 
+1 # rukiddingme 2013-01-12 11:09
This guy must have seen Tarantino's irresponsible DJANGO UNCHAINED once too many times.
 
 
0 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 03:13
I just saw that. Didn't the guy who was about to castrate him get all shot up earlier? Because I am looking at this guy and thinking didn't he just get a big old hole in his thigh and now he is walking like nothing happened.
 
 
+7 # David Starr 2013-01-12 11:14
Quoting Ward: "...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."

Really? How could slaves have armed themselves and rebelled successfully against slavery with the gunnuts of that time protecting it?
 
 
+9 # stan van houcke 2013-01-12 11:20
larry ward is right:

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.
 
 
+1 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 03:18
The Indians did have weapons. They were not throwing flowers at us. We simply had more people than they did and our weapons got better. Our population got larger and larger to where there was no way of stopping us even if we stayed with flintlocks.
 
 
+8 # Polimorphus 2013-01-12 11:44
What an ineffably silly conceit = the young democracy, two of whose constituents have refused to abolish slavery, now arms the newly freed slaves (what about those in Georgia and Carolina?), with whom the now free democratic citizens would thereafter live in fraternal peace ever after!
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.
 
 
+5 # Gnome de Pluehm 2013-01-12 11:56
Quoting Ward: "...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."

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.
 
 
0 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 03:25
Chuck is right to a degree. Numbers also help. The Germans often had better equipment. They lacked manpower.

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.
 
 
+8 # Manacha 2013-01-12 12:03
Hasn't that man ever heard of Spartacus who led the longest and most effective slave rebellion in Roman times? Of course, he and his followers were finally crucified. Slavery had a long history, only a change in mind, mores, and society could end it. I hope that gun regulations do not take that long. This is a society that no longer seems to hold anything "sacred" or so important as a symbol, such as MLKing was, that we should not tamper with it.
 
 
+7 # corey 2013-01-12 12:05
I am sure things would of been different if blacks had weapons, as it would be if the Native American Indians as long as they were more powerful and they weren't out numbered by whites. However the focus should really be on this slime ball bringing up MLK. This is how a racist acts when they don't want to be thought of as a racist, he may have we'll said "Some of my best friends are black."
 
 
+18 # Smokey 2013-01-12 12:18
Remeber Martin Luther King? He was mentioned very early in this conversation... . Dr. King was, consistently, a spokesperson for non-violence. He was wary of Black Power nationalists who spent lots of time talking about "armed struggle" and that sort of thing.

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.
 
 
+2 # RicKelis 2013-01-12 12:27
Well, there is some historical bsckground for this goofy assertion. But it's all screwed up and mis-applied (SOP for radical right-wingers.)
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.
 
 
0 # DevinMacGregor 2013-01-13 03:33
The problem with that is what about the vote? Sure slaves had no vote but whites did. Should we take up arms all the time for something we do not like with a vote not going our way? We fought a blood war to finally put in the Bill of Rights the end of slavery. I have 42 family members who put on blue. Women did not have the vote so should take up arms and start shooting people? We assume that only people with just causes will take up arms but what about those who well feel they have a right to deny others rights and the govt is oppressing them?

Post Civil War South was bloody. Grant as POTUS called in the US Military to reoccupy the South to try to stop the violence.
 
 
+12 # LizR 2013-01-12 12:28
Wow, an attempt to justify the ownership of automatic/semi- automatic weapons that actually seems to make sense for a few seconds. Have the NRA had a brain transplant or something? Of course it's the same idiocy I've seen in protection of this ridiculous state of affairs on lots of forums. The best argument against the private ownership of weapons that can kill lots of people very fast, in my opinion, is the sheer stupidity of the argumments people use in support of it. Things like "but then you'd have to ban cars, and knives, because they kill people too!"

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.
 
 
+14 # fredboy 2013-01-12 12:50
The gun nuts are right wingers and as such fabricate history at will--then believe their own bullshit.

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?
 
 
0 # grouchy 2013-01-12 12:53
OK, now let's turn the clock backwards and give guns to the folk in Africa for slaves, and why not the Indians in the Americas? Then see if things balance out. The rebellions that happened here were by a small minority against a majority backed by militia and the military and thus were outnumbered in the end. The Indians here did succeed by doing in Custer and did so by using modern rifles, something few of the troops had--but the event was followed by massive army reply. Now try equal numbers on each side fully armed as the opposing side was and see what the outcome would be. By the way, this would involve a whole lot of killing too!
 
 
+1 # carolcsme 2013-01-12 13:15
They would have died.
 
 
+8 # fliteshare 2013-01-12 14:07
On 9-11-1989 (Nine November) an East German General was requested to assist in controlling an unruly (civil disobedient) but UNARMED crowd. His reply over the phone, "I am being paid to defend the (East) German people, not shoot them in the back". Four hours later the Germans were celebrating reunification on the Berlin wall.
Which proves: winning a battle requires firepower. Winning over the hart and mind of your opponent requires exposing your humanity.
 
 
+3 # Selwick 2013-01-13 07:47
Exactly, the Velvet Revolution in East Germany is the best example that should quiet all the right-wing, crazy gun-slinging wanna-be insurgents.

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.”
 
 
+9 # kalpal 2013-01-12 14:08
Its both funny and sad to see right wing gun nuts argue that more guns is the only solution to too many guns too easily available.
 
 
+8 # mjc 2013-01-12 14:13
Can't believe any EDUCATED American could say that. How did Larry Ward get out of grade school not having any better idea about slavery in this country than that?
 
 
+7 # Abigail 2013-01-12 14:35
If you believes these pro-gun comments, you should be aiming for the stars- how about an atomic bomb supply in every household?
 
 
-4 # the Cisco 2013-01-12 16:37
No weapon is too powerful when you're defending your life against an attacker trying to kill you! And your defense, as a rule of thumb, just for you to consider, ought to be more powerful than the weapon being used to kill you. Just saying!
 
 
+1 # PGreen 2013-01-12 18:04
Almost every aggressive act of war has been justified (by the side which performs it) by claims that it was done for defensive reasons. Historically, these acts continually escalate to more and more powerful weapons, and this has been the case in street crime as well war. The gun manufacturers lobby, the NRA, opposes most restrictions on weapons, as in 2004 when it successfully blocked renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban on automatic weapons. History suggests that if we continue in this vein, we will have more dangerous weapon battles on the street-- unless we can reverse the trend.
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.
 
 
+4 # ishmael 2013-01-12 16:48
Abigail, you are absolutely correct and no one in the Guns 'R' Us lobby has ever come close to a lucid reply.

Remember, they are driven by paranoia, not rational thought.
 
 
+4 # ishmael 2013-01-12 16:14
The right is well known for attracting paranoid personality types. Unfounded suspiciousness of others simply reflects this personality trait.

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.
 
 
+1 # the Cisco 2013-01-12 16:33
Except, you are surely aware of historical documents showing that the arming of blacks and Indians together did free both black slaves in Haiti and black slaves and Indian peons in Mexico, as well as in the American West, where mixed race cimmarons and renegades won freedom and remained free.
 
 
+4 # ishmael 2013-01-12 16:36
If only Christ and the Apostles hsd been armed ...
 
 
+5 # davehaze 2013-01-12 16:54
I understand how Muslims, Jews, atheists, pagans can believe in gun ownership since their beliefs or lack of belief condone it, but how can Christians balance a belief in the pacifist Jesus with their worship of guns and the violence and killing and murder that follows? Why should they need to protect themselves with weapons when they are under the pure protection of Jesus?

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.
 
 
+2 # Selwick 2013-01-13 07:52
They are hypocrits, all of them!

Religion tied with ignorance is the worst enemy of humanity.
 
 
+5 # Michaeljohn 2013-01-12 17:02
Unfortunately, the vocal gun owners have allowed themselves to become shills for the arms manufacturers who are the real beneficiaries of NRA lobbyists. Follow the money.
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.
 
 
+3 # RickMaart 2013-01-13 07:53
Speaking of that: Is the NRA a tax exempt organization?
 
 
+9 # JAJ 2013-01-12 17:18
There are kids in Africa today who are abducted and then inducted into involuntary service as child soldiers. Many of them are given arms -- sometimes even automatic weapons. But they are slaves anyway, because their captors control them with drugs, food, threats to kill them or their families, and other means. Arming people doesn't necessarily prevent them from being enslaved.
 
 
+4 # Byronator 2013-01-12 19:15
JAJ, thank you for making that excellent point. African nations are awash in guns (thanks to the American-led global weapons trade) and freedom is the casualty. The U.S. is following that trend. How long before we have child warriors trained in our public schools? (We know many of the faith-based schools are already there.)
 
 
+2 # JAJ 2013-01-12 17:25
Slaves were captured in Africa mainly by other Africans, not by Europeans. Then they were sold to slave-traders, who were Europeans and people from the Middle East. Then they were shipped to the U.S. and, if they survived, put to work on farms and plantations. In the U.S. some of the earliest gun-control laws blocked slaves and "free negros" from having guns. Those laws were promoted by slave-owners, who were strong proponents of gun rights for themselves. So for Larry what's-his-name to fantasize about what might have been if African-America ns had been armed is not only historically ignorant, but it's also hypocritical.
 
 
+1 # HahliHohli 2013-01-12 18:11
All this relentless fear based talk only serves to weaken us (armed or unarmed) as the dark side holds us hostage in our minds. Stay in kindness and love and what you know to be the Truth. This will starve the enemy...they feed on our fear!
 
 
0 # maroon1 2013-01-12 18:55
Slavery, the non-permanent, non-lifetime, war captive brand of slavery, existed in Africa before firearms. Africans, having a trading relationship with the Chinese going back thousands of years, and having iron before Europeans, developed firearms before Europeans. That technology was not widespread, and since for example Muslims, were enslaving fellow Muslims (one-third of slaves coming to the US were Muslim) firearms wouldn't have made a difference if the African slavers had guns and you didn't. Guns would not have prevented the millions of Europeans enslaved by Africans between 711 and 1492, from being enslaved. As my parents referred to it, the Negro Removal Association NRA, was partially created to prevent free blacks from owning guns, to defend themselves against the Klan and its allies. If Charlton Heston felt that gun violence in America was explained or caused by racemixing, then its clear the Racist memetic core of the NRA is still in place. Armed maroons successfully resisted slavers in every place slavery existed particularly in the quilombos of Brazil, the hills of Jamaica, Mexico, and other places. There were successful rebellions, even successful rebellions where slaves took over slave ships and sailed themselves back to Africa. They had one common feature, they killed the entire crew. The Amistad slaves, made the mistake of letting the crew live. The lesson, only good slaver, is a dead slaver, by any means necessary.
 
 
0 # ishmael 2013-01-12 20:16
A well-armed populace didn't deter Hitler from getting into power. The gun people don't recognize the power of persuasion and emotional appeals, wich he used so effectively.

Even while persuasion and emotion - not intellect - is running their own lives.
 
 
+3 # elisha1 2013-01-12 22:55
There is an old saying: If your aunt had testicles she would be your uncle. None of us can change history. The kidnapped Africans cannot retroactively kill off the European invaders. This person is simply attempting to cover the tracks of a well crafted lie.
 
 
+1 # corals33 2013-01-13 11:20
Mr ward needs to be put in a ward with a specially padded cell next to his gun-toting mates. These so-called "Americans" should concentrate on BARING ARMS which means rolling up your sleeves and doing an honest days work for an honest days pay and not expecting the Chinese to do it all for them much like their black slaves.This talk about amendments and constitution is pure bollocks.There is no them and us.Just US.
 
 
+1 # venusman 2013-01-13 14:38
The arguments back and forth about the meaning of the Second Amendment are getting tiresome. Regardless of legal technicalities, we have an enormous problem, best recognized by the fact that more than ten thousand people a year are murdered by firearms in the US. This bears a relationship to the fact that the number of guns and the number of people is about the same in this country. In the UK, there is one firearm (excluding shotguns) for every hundred people. Are there many fewer murders in the UK because the Brits are wimps, or do not value Freedom and Liberty? It seems to me that the most evident reason is related to the number of guns out there. In that case, I would predict that if the NRA and the gun manufacturers have their way, and we acquire even more guns, the murder rate will go up, not down. So, we would have exacerbated the problem, making the NRA solution dishonest. I am interested in hearing a better response from the NRA membership. As much of the western world has a low gun-related murder rate, while the US has a very high rate, what's to be done? An answer of "more guns" is not acceptable.
 
 
+4 # ishmael 2013-01-13 15:57
It is sooo embarrassing interacting with people overseas and they see how ridiculous the Guns 'R' Us people are. They wonder how the sane part of the country puts up with it - and all the gun violence.
 
 
0 # MsAnnaNOLA 2013-01-15 10:11
I think we need rational gun checks, but lets be clear about one thing. USA will never be Britain. We have had loose gun regulations forever. People have been allowed to amass personal armories and they have done so. The ship has sailed so to speak. We will only be able to regulate new sales of guns.
 

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.

RSNRSN